[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CA5567.9010002@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:04:55 -0700
From: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
<rrichter@...ium.com>, <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
<sgoutham@...ium.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<rafael@...nel.org>, <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] net: thunder: Add ACPI support.
On 08/11/2015 11:49 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:58:35 -0700
>
>> Change from v1: Drop PHY binding part, use fwnode_property* APIs.
>>
>> The first patch (1/2) rearranges the existing code a little with no
>> functional change to get ready for the second. The second (2/2) does
>> the actual work of adding support to extract the needed information
>> from the ACPI tables.
>
> Series applied.
Thank you very much.
>
> In the future it might be better structured to try and get the OF
> node, and if that fails then try and use the ACPI method to obtain
> these values.
Our current approach, as you can see in the patch, is the opposite. If
ACPI is being used, prefer that over the OF device tree.
You seem to be recommending precedence for OF. It should be consistent
across all drivers/sub-systems, so do you really think that OF before
ACPI is the way to go?
Thanks,
David Daney
--
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