[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160510184806.GK1256@tuxbot>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:48:06 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...inux.com, maxime.coquelin@...com, ohad@...ery.com,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: core: Add rproc OF look-up functions
On Tue 10 May 07:16 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
> > On Thu 05 May 06:29 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> > > - of_rproc_byindex(): look-up and obtain a reference to a rproc
> > > using the DT phandle "rprocs" and a index.
> > >
> > > - of_rproc_byname(): lookup and obtain a reference to a rproc
> > > using the DT phandle "rprocs" and "rproc-names".
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > I like the idea of having these helpers, but we already have
> > rproc_get_by_phandle() so these helpers should be built upon that rather
> > than adding the additional list.
>
> Since this is a framework consideration, don't you think it would be
> better to standardise the phandle name? This is common practice when
> coding at a subsystem level. Some in use examples include; "clocks",
> "power-domains", "mboxes", "dmas", "phys", "resets", "gpios", etc.
>
> Considering the aforementioned examples, I figured "rprocs" would be
> suitable.
>
To summarize our chat for the record and others.
I'm definitely in favour of this and think "rprocs" and "rproc-names"
sounds good. My comment was only regarding the duplicated
implementation.
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists