From: Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>
To: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, arm@kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/3] driver core & of: Mark of_nodes of added device as populated
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:32:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FA5EB4.7080008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392137610-27842-2-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
Hi Pawel,
On 02/11/2014 11:53 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> This patch tries to solve that issue in a generic way,
> adding a "populated" flag which is set in the device_node
> structure when a device is being created in the core.
> Later, of_platform_populate() skips such nodes (and
> its children) in a similar way to the non-available ones.
Will there never be a case where it is useful for a parent node to be created
early, but not necessarily the child nodes? Might only skipping nodes
explicitly marked as populated be a more universal solution?
Regards,
Christopher
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by the Linux Foundation.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: cov@codeaurora.org (Christopher Covington)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] driver core & of: Mark of_nodes of added device as populated
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:32:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FA5EB4.7080008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392137610-27842-2-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
Hi Pawel,
On 02/11/2014 11:53 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> This patch tries to solve that issue in a generic way,
> adding a "populated" flag which is set in the device_node
> structure when a device is being created in the core.
> Later, of_platform_populate() skips such nodes (and
> its children) in a similar way to the non-available ones.
Will there never be a case where it is useful for a parent node to be created
early, but not necessarily the child nodes? Might only skipping nodes
explicitly marked as populated be a more universal solution?
Regards,
Christopher
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by the Linux Foundation.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>
To: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, arm@kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] driver core & of: Mark of_nodes of added device as populated
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:32:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FA5EB4.7080008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392137610-27842-2-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
Hi Pawel,
On 02/11/2014 11:53 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> This patch tries to solve that issue in a generic way,
> adding a "populated" flag which is set in the device_node
> structure when a device is being created in the core.
> Later, of_platform_populate() skips such nodes (and
> its children) in a similar way to the non-available ones.
Will there never be a case where it is useful for a parent node to be created
early, but not necessarily the child nodes? Might only skipping nodes
explicitly marked as populated be a more universal solution?
Regards,
Christopher
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by the Linux Foundation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-11 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-11 16:53 [lm-sensors] [PATCH 0/3] Versatile Express sysregs rework Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/3] driver core & of: Mark of_nodes of added device as populated Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 17:32 ` Christopher Covington [this message]
2014-02-11 17:32 ` Christopher Covington
2014-02-11 17:32 ` Christopher Covington
2014-04-28 17:40 ` [lm-sensors] " Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:40 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:40 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:40 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-13 19:15 ` [lm-sensors] " Rob Herring
2014-02-13 19:15 ` Rob Herring
2014-02-13 19:15 ` Rob Herring
2014-02-13 19:15 ` Rob Herring
2014-04-28 17:37 ` [lm-sensors] " Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:37 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:37 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:37 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:50 ` [lm-sensors] " Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:50 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:50 ` Pawel Moll
2014-04-28 17:50 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH 2/3] mfd: vexpress: Convert custom func API to regmap Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-12 2:26 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2014-02-12 2:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-02-12 2:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-02-11 16:53 ` [lm-sensors] [PATCH 3/3] mfd: vexpress: Define the device as MFD cells Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
2014-02-11 16:53 ` Pawel Moll
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52FA5EB4.7080008@codeaurora.org \
--to=cov@codeaurora.org \
--cc=arm@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dbaryshkov@gmail.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.de \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mturquette@linaro.org \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.