Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctly with alias nodes

2012-02-27 Thread Marek Vasut
> Marek/Simon, > > > -Original Message- > > From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass > > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:55 PM > > To: Marek Vasut; Tom Warren > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctl

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctly with alias nodes

2012-02-27 Thread Tom Warren
Marek/Simon, > -Original Message- > From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:55 PM > To: Marek Vasut; Tom Warren > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctly with alias nodes > > +

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctly with alias nodes

2012-02-26 Thread Marek Vasut
> This series proposes a new way to deal with alias nodes and introduces a > function to take care of it. > > It includes an example of converting USB code over to use this new > function. > > Note: At present it does not deal automatically with disabled nodes, > but perhaps it should? Or perhaps

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] fdt: Deal correctly with alias nodes

2011-12-26 Thread Simon Glass
This series proposes a new way to deal with alias nodes and introduces a function to take care of it. It includes an example of converting USB code over to use this new function. Note: At present it does not deal automatically with disabled nodes, but perhaps it should? Or perhaps this is better