From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: dsa: Suffix function manipulating device_node with _dn Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:57:18 -0700 Message-ID: <577E97FE.6010500@gmail.com> References: <1467756433-25062-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <1467756433-25062-4-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20160705223612.GC28825@lunn.ch> <577C3817.1070908@gmail.com> <87a8hvv85y.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Vivien Didelot , Andrew Lunn Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:33078 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750859AbcGGR50 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:57:26 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b13so7949664pat.0 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8hvv85y.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/05/2016 06:59 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi, > > Florian Fainelli writes: > >> On 07/05/2016 03:36 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>> Make it clear that these functions take a device_node structure pointer >>> >>> Hi Florian >>> >>> Didn't we agree that we would only support a single device via a C >>> coded platform data structure? >> >> That is true for the devices I know about, both in and out of tree, >> however, while discussing offline with Vivien it seemed like there was a >> potential need for having a x86-based platform which could need that, >> Vivien do you think this platform could be in-tree one day (if not already)? > > This customer platform is not mainlined yet and I cannot say today if it > will be. However it is likely to get a new revision soon with 3 > interconnected 6352 hanging the x86 Baytrail. > > DT on x86 is possible, but not straight-forward, and thanks to Florian's > work the pdata support is almost there for free. > >>> All the functions you are renaming will never be called in that >>> case. So i think they can retain there names. You have no need to add >>> none device node equivalents. >>> >>> So lets drop this patch. > > The patch is not big and I think it doesn't hurt to add that explicit > suffix, I'd keep the patch in the series. Either way is fine with me really, we can drop this patch, add it later, not add it, up to you guys. I think the 3 others could go in as they are pretty self contained, your call David. -- Florian