From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:49 +0100 Message-ID: <524E9BA9.4000506@arm.com> References: <1379501585-12532-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <20130918145116.D53A5C42CDF@trevor.secretlab.ca> <5239D26E.5090505@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5239D26E.5090505-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , Grant Likely Cc: "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Grant, On 18/09/13 17:18, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > On 18/09/13 15:51, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:53:03 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >>> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures >>> apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition >>> of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sudeep >> >> Acked-by: Grant Likely >> >> However, do you have a user for this function on other architectures >> yet? I'd like to see a user for the function in the same patch series.. >> > > Yes I have posted an RFC[1] following this series implementing cacheinfo > for ARM similar to x86 implementation. I was not sure if it's good idea > to combine it as its still initial RFC version. > Do you prefer to have this a independent change or to go with the cache topology support patches[1] on ARM ? Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/18/340 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html