[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4b227a63e8c803e4758c7bb8fd62d9f@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:45:59 +0530
From: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, cang@...eaurora.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] phy: qcom-qmp: Utilize fully-specified DT
registers
On 2018-10-25 02:06, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:29 AM Vivek Gautam
> <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch.
>> I am starting to think that the driver is heavily relying on the
>> resource indices to request
>> all these areas ioremapped. Is it a good way forward that driver and
>> the
>> dt bindings are
>> chained together?
>> Should we rather switch to requesting these resources by some names?
>>
>> Rob can comment on this possibly.
>
> I thought about suggesting that but I know that Rob really doesn't
> like accessing register ranges by name [1]. Even in cases where you
> reference things by name Rob likes there to be a fully defined order
> and once you have a fully defined order you don't really need the
> names unless you have more than one optional register range.
Right, I second that. I was looking for options. :)
>
> In any case, Rob already gave his review to Evan's bindings change.
> See:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181023002903.GA16854@bogus
Yea, I saw that too.
Best regards
Vivek
>
> ...so my vote would be to keep it as Evan's patch series has it and
> not try to bikeshed it.
>
>
>> Reviewed-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
>
> [1]
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAL_Jsq+MMunmVWqeW9v2RyzsMKP+=kMzeTHNMG4JDHM7Fy0HBg@mail.gmail.com
>
> -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists