From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] arm: omap: hwmod: add debugfs interface Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:36:03 -0600 Message-ID: <20150120143603.GB6556@saruman> References: <1417818672-11586-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r" Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:37033 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248AbbATOhT (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:37:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Felipe Balbi , Tony Lindgren , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:13:57AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Paul Walmsley wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >=20 > > > By exposing the details of hwmod structures > > > to debugfs we can much more easily verify > > > that changes to hwmod data is correct and won't > > > cause regressions. > > >=20 > > > The idea is that this can be used to check the > > > state of one hwmod, verify hwmod sysc fields, etc. > > >=20 > > > For example, this will be used to move some of > > > the sysc fields to DT and later verify that they > > > are correct pre- and post-patch. > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > >=20 > > This one had a bunch of unnecessary includes and checkpatch issues=20 > > (below). I cleaned those up here and have queued the result (also belo= w)=20 > > for v3.20. >=20 > ... and, the patch doesn't even boot. Dropped. >=20 > If you really want something like this to be merged, resend a version tha= t=20 > boots, and has checkpatch warnings fixed and unnecessary includes dropped= =2E =20 > Otherwise you're just wasting my time. you're using a really old version, though. There have been other versions which are still under discussion. --=20 balbi --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUvmfTAAoJEIaOsuA1yqRE1osP/2vGGGQnNyQyNjwWe0CSmVlJ 9OLSnjUeVLgpaDa8m2/mgXam7uLVXG5Y60lchGg5vcOPRV/vJQzYtwtKmaG4zCQi zNuS0C3FBeG//5C9lajc0Lwq2ipj0z3sFM0K9M8nLVhSzoExf/A+Fbrq0KUyPgZq U+7jaRoy23XkjJ5w9bZxFflr2bk/9sb9OLDmcrIMGCWnuz6KqtOOpILzNn3HLHKK 6jgEF1JQ3GZrojCiq+r5A2Evg3dpkoPR1G9IaFsGWBiL32QPWCYf7+NHM673Pbm4 u0acwCq1Ayy2rcfa7BHfKXttFGq30PpZ00Ud19u0tB+4GZmdiDo7ZW6QjQBRXT44 v+MURohfY5q1yHNfMZSqBwfQ3B/Bkqcd34F8kwD575OSB2NKefW8VXudVi7zw7wN oplULSjR4xv7lZ76eeT6EiI+IEj3cL7f0eMcptKjloq+PrY+bJUykU6ovLdrvfD8 dAMzlacVDVm0gnHYCuS0Ews2E+Buviu5/KozUYfzXaI2yRpHi3G0liTdyBCVnsPd 3OSG0T4XyYwaDWcewPJ/KZln/8NLMF/MOGk4/s5/qhyKjuqG4CNnbyeyho+qiHpB lnGB3J3YCgCVzjtylo1nyvaHzr25IzXiZjXC87TzWrFGgAek1CKgIKrAn48eXsua uzqt4sDFRxuvuJ/l2K05 =+H8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r--