On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/13/2013 05:38 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/07/2013 03:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>>> >>>> Just a set of small fixes to address the concerns expressed on v9 with >>>> the >>>> non-prefixed version DT properties. I hope there won't be a need for an >>>> eleventh (!) version. :P >>> >>> >>> BTW, this version looks fine to me. On IRC, Olof said it looked OK to >>> him. I'm just waiting to hear back from Olof/Russell whether I should >>> merge this through the Tegra tree, or whether the first 1-3 patches >>> should go through Russell's tree. >> >> >> I pinged Russell, and he brought up the fact that there were earlier >> requests to move it to drivers/firmware. It would make sense to try to >> get that done before merging, especially if you anticipate someone >> using TF on 64-bit platforms. > > > IIRC when we discussed this point your last comment was as follows: Touche. :) Thanks for the reminder. > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think we can probably merge this under arch/arm now, and when we >> figure out what needs to be common with ARM64 we can move it out to a >> good location. It might be that mostly just a header file with ABI >> conventions needs to be shared, not actual implementation, for >> example. > > So I thought we agreed on that. If in the end we prefer to move the ARM > firmware interface into drivers/firmware, I'm fine with that too (Tomasz > also confirmed he would be ok with it) but I wonder if that would not be > somehow premature. > > Another worry of mine is that this might delay this patchset some more. > Support for TF is one of the last remaining step towards making NVIDIA > branded Tegra retail devices (SHIELD and TegraNote at the moment) run > upstream directly. I missed 3.13, I'd like to make sure I won't miss 3.14. > Would it be acceptable if we move the ARM firmware interface to a common > place after this patchset is merged? Well, as I already said I'm ok with things going into arch/arm to start with, as long as Russell is. Once we see 64-bit needs for the same we'll move it out -- it's not like it's a whole lot of code to start with. But Russell has veto on the topic. :-) Russell still has his pull requests outstanding so I'm not sure where things are at, but I don't think this will miss 3.14 at this rate. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
