From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:45:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] of: move phandle/ihandle into types.h and Message-Id: <20101008.104557.59696706.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <20101008171210.GE3863@angua.secretlab.ca> <20101008.101759.193728130.davem@davemloft.net> <20101008173650.GH3863@angua.secretlab.ca> In-Reply-To: <20101008173650.GH3863-MrY2KI0G/OVr83L8+7iqerDks+cytr/Z@public.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org Cc: sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, sam-uyr5N9Q2VtJg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dilinger-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:36:50 -0600 > Weird. Yeah, no other platforms expect to get a phandle type > definition from the kernel headers. The only thing driving this > conversation is from arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild: > > header-y += openprom.h It was probably at one point for the sake of asm/openpromio.h but that header has no dependencies on openprom.h The only hit I can find in google code search, for non-kernel code, is the SILO bootloader. But that tree includes it's own copy of include/asm/openprom.h so the actual kernel copy isn't even used. I'd say we can stop exporting that header and also therefore not worry about making phandle_t visible to userspace. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759305Ab0JHRpi (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:45:38 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35978 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759182Ab0JHRpg (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:45:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20101008.104557.59696706.davem@davemloft.net> To: grant.likely@secretlab.ca Cc: dilinger@queued.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@ravnborg.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] of: move phandle/ihandle into types.h and export to userspace From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20101008173650.GH3863@angua.secretlab.ca> References: <20101008171210.GE3863@angua.secretlab.ca> <20101008.101759.193728130.davem@davemloft.net> <20101008173650.GH3863@angua.secretlab.ca> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:36:50 -0600 > Weird. Yeah, no other platforms expect to get a phandle type > definition from the kernel headers. The only thing driving this > conversation is from arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild: > > header-y += openprom.h It was probably at one point for the sake of asm/openpromio.h but that header has no dependencies on openprom.h The only hit I can find in google code search, for non-kernel code, is the SILO bootloader. But that tree includes it's own copy of include/asm/openprom.h so the actual kernel copy isn't even used. I'd say we can stop exporting that header and also therefore not worry about making phandle_t visible to userspace. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] of: move phandle/ihandle into types.h and export to userspace Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20101008.104557.59696706.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20101008171210.GE3863@angua.secretlab.ca> <20101008.101759.193728130.davem@davemloft.net> <20101008173650.GH3863@angua.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101008173650.GH3863-MrY2KI0G/OVr83L8+7iqerDks+cytr/Z@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org Cc: sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, sam-uyr5N9Q2VtJg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dilinger-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:36:50 -0600 > Weird. Yeah, no other platforms expect to get a phandle type > definition from the kernel headers. The only thing driving this > conversation is from arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild: > > header-y += openprom.h It was probably at one point for the sake of asm/openpromio.h but that header has no dependencies on openprom.h The only hit I can find in google code search, for non-kernel code, is the SILO bootloader. But that tree includes it's own copy of include/asm/openprom.h so the actual kernel copy isn't even used. I'd say we can stop exporting that header and also therefore not worry about making phandle_t visible to userspace.