[PATCH 1/2][v7] powerpc/mpc85xx:Add initial device tree support of T104x

Vlad Bogdan-BOGVLAD1 bogvlad1 at freescale.com
Thu Oct 3 19:35:35 EST 2013


Hello,
Yes the driver owner exist. We have a proposal of l2 switch bindings.
Will send a patch with the l2 switch bindings added on top of existing T104x proposal.

Regards,

Bogdan V

-----Original Message-----
From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+bogdan.vlad=freescale.com at lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 22:57
To: Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579
Cc: Sethi Varun-B16395; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org; Aggrwal Poonam-B10812; Jain Priyanka-B32167
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][v7] powerpc/mpc85xx:Add initial device tree support of T104x

On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 08:56 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 01:17 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:24 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
> >>      - Removed l2switch. It will be added later
> > Why?
>
> I am not aware of bindings required for l2switch as we are not working
> on the driver.
> Earlier I thought of putting a place holder. but as you suggested to
> put bindings in documentation.
> It will be good if it is put by actual driver owner.

Is there a reason to believe the binding will be complicated?

Does any such "driver owner" exist yet?


> >> +sata at 220000 {
> >> +                  fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
> >> +                  fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x550>; /* SATA1LIODNR */ }; /include/
> >> +"qoriq-sata2-1.dtsi"
> >> +sata at 221000 {
> >> +                  fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
> >> +                  fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x554>; /* SATA2LIODNR */ };
> > Whitespace
>
> do we have any scripts which check for whitespace as checkpatch never
> give any warning/error.
> it is a very silly mistake which I am doing continuously :(

checkpatch doesn't check dts files.

> >> +/include/ "t1040si-post.dtsi"
> > Should at least have a comment indicating that eventually this
> > should hold the l2 switch node.
>
> yes. Ideally it should be.
> but if I put a comment then I believe this patch will not be completed.
> it will think as a RFC.
> as I believe putting of TODO is generally for RFC patches.

As is, one would wonder why the separate file exists at all.

The TODO is there whether you have a comment acknowledging it or not. :-)

-Scott



_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev




More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list