Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1182544 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match_device()

Started byTomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
First post2015-07-13 09:00 +0200
Last post2015-07-13 09:00 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match_device() Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> - 2015-07-13 09:00 +0200

#1182544 — Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match_device()

FromTomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
Date2015-07-13 09:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 10/10] core: platform: use fwnode_driver_match_device()
Message-ID<pLFSy-1Lw-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 11 July 2015 at 04:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 02:53:53 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On 2 July 2015 at 01:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 04:55:08 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >> Instead of calling both of_driver_match_device() and
>> >> acpi_driver_match_device(), call fwnode_driver_match_device() which
>> >> should be able to sort out what firmware describes the device in
>> >> question.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
>> >
>> > This one should be part of the other set IMO.
>>
>> Yeah, I wasn't sure about it myself, but in any case the other series
>> won't depend on this patch any more because I have moved the match
>> delay into platform.c. I plan though to resend this with Rob's
>> comments addressed in the next revision, so they can be taken if they
>> are seen worthy in themselves.
>>
>> > Or please just combine the two sets so it is more clear what the new helpers
>> > are intended for.
>>
>> Sorry about that, I did the split because Mark suggested so in the
>> previous review round. I understand that depending on each person's
>> workflow it may be more convenient in one way or the other, so I'm not
>> sure I can find a way that fits everybody's preferences.
>
> The ordering/form in which it is merged need not reflect the ordering/form
> in which it is reviewed and it is much easier to follow changes having full
> context available.

Sure, nobody was talking yet about how this could be merged.

> So you can split it later if need be, but for now let's keep them all together
> for the completeness of the context.

That's fine with me, really. I've been trying to find a way to send
such big series that will work for most people, but that's probably
the hardest part of it all.

Regards,

Tomeu

> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web