linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: at91/dt: make use of periph id macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:06:20 +0200
From:	boris brezillon <b.brezillon@...rkiz.com>
To:	Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>
CC:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: at91/dt: make use of periph id macros

Hello Richard,

On 01/08/2013 11:27, Richard Genoud wrote:
> 2013/8/1 Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>:
>> 2013/8/1 Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@...rkiz.com>:
>>> 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 <richard.genoud@...il.com>
> on the whole serie.
>
> and my
> Tested-by: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>
> on patch 7/8
>
>
> Richard.

Thanks for the review and the tests.

Best Regards,

Boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/