From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com (service87.mimecast.com [91.220.42.44]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4559B2C00EC for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 02:18:44 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <5239D26E.5090505@arm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:18:54 +0100 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core References: <1379501585-12532-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <20130918145116.D53A5C42CDF@trevor.secretlab.ca> In-Reply-To: <20130918145116.D53A5C42CDF@trevor.secretlab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 >=20 > Acked-by: Grant Likely >=20 > 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.. >=20 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. Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/18/340