From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UoWsB-0003Tf-CI for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:41:20 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:40:55 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20130617104055.GQ32299@pengutronix.de> References: <1368400146-30443-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130519073403.GY32299@pengutronix.de> <51B6EED2.3010707@gmail.com> <20130613092557.GC32299@pengutronix.de> <51B9930B.8080609@gmail.com> <20130613124833.GD32299@pengutronix.de> <51BA1476.3060309@gmail.com> <20130617074724.GK32299@pengutronix.de> <51BEE3AD.20406@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51BEE3AD.20406@gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: add ranges address translation for default bus To: Sebastian Hesselbarth Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On 06/17/2013 09:47 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:50:30PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>On 06/13/13 14:48, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:38:19AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>>>On 06/13/13 11:25, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>>>>Sounds like a plan. Functions existing both in barebox and Linux should > >>>>>behave the same way. However, if Linux turns out to do something silly > >>>>>or (for our usecase) too bloated, we shouldn't do the same just because > >>>>>Linux does it. > >>pushed a branch you can have a first look at to > >> > >>git://github.com/shesselba/barebox-dove.git of-sync-v1 > > > >I had a quick look at this branch. It has some really good stuff in it. > >You should post it for a closer review if you consider it ready. > > Ok, I've had another round of patches in branch of-sync-part2-v1. I will > merge both and either send an RFC or merge in some clean-ups. I didn't > provide stubs for !CONFIG_OF at some places. > > It is already kind of huge patch, so I prefer sending it before more > stuff gets in. Currently, it is more or less fully merged with Linux OF > API wrt base.c. > > Next would be to move code that should have been in common/oftree.c in > the first place (of_add_initrd, of_print_nodes, ...), move out stuff to > of/device.c and of/address.c. > > I haven't looked into barebox' driver/device backend but realized that > struct resource is attached to the device_node. Maybe it should also > move to some other struct (device_d) ? It already is attached to struct device_d. It should be easy to drop the reference in struct device_node. I don't know why struct device_node has the resources in it anyway, probably this happened during development and I never thought about it again. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox