[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKM_YP0Cj3Uo7TeCVcKcbzzsuK3yxTSn6pG8qGFOnZAiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:28:09 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Samsung SOC <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Prathyush <prathyush.k@...sung.com>,
Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@...sung.com>,
Subash Patel <supash.ramaswamy@...aro.org>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
Antonios Motakis <a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/16] iommu/exynos: support for device tree
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:41:25 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> Hi KyongHo,
>>
>> On Thursday 08 of August 2013 18:38:49 Cho KyongHo wrote:
>> > This commit adds device tree support for System MMU.
>> > This also include the following changes and enhancements:
>> >
>> > * use managed device helper functions.
>> > Simplyfies System MMU device driver.
>> >
>> > * use only a single clock descriptor.
>> > System MMU device descriptor is seperate if it is imposible to make
>> > a single clock descriptor to make a device descriptor for a group of
>> > System MMUs.
>> >
>> > * removed dbgname member from sysmmu_drvdata structure.
>> > debugging kernel message for a System MMU is distinguisheable with the
>> > name of device descroptors.
>>
>> Please put all these three changes in separate patches. This patch is hard
>> to review with all the changes mixed together...
Agreed.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>> In addition, I believe this is the patch that should be adding device tree
>> binding documentation, not the 6/16 one, as this is where actually support
>> for this binding gets added to the kernel.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that devicetree binding description and implementation need
> to be in the same patch.
> I will do as you advised.
Actually, I prefer the binding docs be separate patches. The reason
being so we can get closer to having them in a separate repository.
Also, then the binding can be acked separately from the kernel
implementation using the binding.
Rob
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists