On Tuesday 27 July 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
I suggest to go back to v2 of your patch where you use asm-generic/of.h.
Stephen suggested dropping asm-generic/of.h. I'm happy to do it either way.
I don't mind adding stuff to asm-generic, but I think in this case it would
be easier to keep
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:34:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 27 July 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
I suggest to go back to v2 of your patch where you use asm-generic/of.h.
Stephen suggested dropping asm-generic/of.h. I'm happy to do it either way.
I don't mind adding stuff to
of_node_to_nid() is only relevant in a few architectures. Don't force
everyone to implement it anyway. This patch also adds asm-generic/of.h
which will be used to contain other overrideable symbols.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
---
Changes in v3: don't use asm-generic,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
of_node_to_nid() is only relevant in a few architectures. Don't force
everyone to implement it anyway. This patch also adds asm-generic/of.h
which will be used to contain other overrideable symbols.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:04:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
of_node_to_nid() is only relevant in a few architectures. Don't force
everyone to implement it anyway. This patch also adds asm-generic/of.h
which will be used to contain other overrideable symbols.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:04:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
of_node_to_nid() is only relevant in a few architectures. Don't force
everyone to implement it anyway. This patch also adds asm-generic/of.h
which will be used
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:42:20 -0600
It protects against some later include file doing a #define
of_node_to_nid and thus resulting in an inconsistent definition. If
some code tries to do this then the preprocessor will complain. This
is the
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:48 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:42:20 -0600
It protects against some later include file doing a #define
of_node_to_nid and thus resulting in an inconsistent definition. If
some
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:51:01 -0600
Indeed. I looked at it briefly, but it wasn't immediately clear what
the impact would be to switch powerpc over to -1, and it looked to me
like sparc depends on -1 to signify no node association.
Kernel wide,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:51:01 -0600
Indeed. I looked at it briefly, but it wasn't immediately clear what
the impact would be to switch powerpc over to -1, and it looked to
10 matches
Mail list logo
