On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Ok then. Please add
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd
Added, and applied patch. thanks!
> It would be nice if you got an ack from Greg or Kay on the device_type
> usage too.
I agree, I'd just hate bothering them on this now. Probably a topic
f
On 07/02/12 12:54, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
>> though. Is that requirement gone?
> Pretty much, yeah. I'll soon post a separate patch which removes the
> get_by_name func
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
> though. Is that requirement gone?
Pretty much, yeah. I'll soon post a separate patch which removes the
get_by_name functionality (together with its related klist).
>
On 06/29/12 01:13, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.
>>
>>> I recall seeing a thread where
>>> someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I
>>> can't f
be in
> use by many subsystems.
Moving to device_type is so trivial that I gave it a spin (and moved
to IDA too while at it):
>From caf8db2945ffe445e6b2b9e42b7afa14bae87d2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:01:25 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] remotepro
(Sorry your mail was lost due to mail outage)
On 05/30/12 05:16, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> One complaint I've gotten is that the error messages are essentially
>> useless now. I believe there are some ongoing discussions on lkml to fix
>>
Hi Stephen,
As always - thanks for your review!
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It looks like remoteproc0, remoteproc1, etc. is what's used.
Thanks, I'll update the commit log.
> One complaint I've gotten is that the error messages are essentially
> useless now. I belie
On 5/26/2012 12:36 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> For each registered rproc, maintain a generic remoteproc device whose
> parent is the low level platform-specific device (commonly a pdev, but
> it may certainly be any other type of device too).
>
> With this in hand, the resulting device hierarchy mi
For each registered rproc, maintain a generic remoteproc device whose
parent is the low level platform-specific device (commonly a pdev, but
it may certainly be any other type of device too).
With this in hand, the resulting device hierarchy might then look like:
omap-rproc.0
|
- remoteproc.0
