From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b.brezillon@overkiz.com (boris brezillon) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:06:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: at91/dt: make use of periph id macros In-Reply-To: References: <1375339733-3488-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon@overkiz.com> Message-ID: <51FA412C.9080900@overkiz.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Richard, On 01/08/2013 11:27, Richard Genoud wrote: > 2013/8/1 Richard Genoud : >> 2013/8/1 Boris BREZILLON : >>> Hello, >>> >>> This patch series move at91 SoCs peripheral id definitions from machine >>> specific include dir to dt-bindings include dir. >>> These macros are used to reference interrupts instead of peripheral numbers. >>> >>> This makes dt definitions cleaner and easier to debug (one can easily tell if >>> the peripheral macro used to reference an interrupt line is not the good one). >>> >>> These macros will be used for clk definitions and references too. >>> >>> I am not sure 'include/dt-bindings/at91/xxx' is the best place to put these >>> definitions as there are no soc specific directories in dt-bindings include >>> dir right now. Maybe something like 'include/dt-bindings/soc/at91/xxx' or >>> 'include/dt-bindings/peripherals/at91/xxx' would be better. >>> What do you think ? >> Well, I'd rather use "atmel" than "at91" because, AFAIK, this prefix >> has been dropped for new atmel SoCs (sama5 for instance). Sure, I will replace at91 by atmel, but I'd like to get some feedback from at91 maintainers before doing this. Could devicetree maintainers take a look at this series too ? I don't want to mess with dt-bindings include directory by adding some files at the wrong place... > [changed Mark Brown address from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com to > kernel.org (the 1st one failed)] Sorry Mark. Do you want me to resend you the whole series ? > > The whole serie seems good to me (add adding the missing defines is great). > > You can add my: > Reviewed-by: Richard Genoud > on the whole serie. > > and my > Tested-by: Richard Genoud > on patch 7/8 > > > Richard. Thanks for the review and the tests. Best Regards, Boris