On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/14/2013 02:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> 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. :-) > > > Thanks Olof. Russell, are you ok with the patchset in its current form? I > can start moving the firmware interface out of arch/arm if that's what you > want (there is no user outside of ARM at the moment, but as Olof pointed out > that's not too much code) but I'd really like to see this series secured for > 3.14. Never mind, I have submitted a patch that moves firmware_ops to drivers/firmware, that will hopefully settle this issue. Then maybe we can finally flush this series as well (I will need to resubmit a new version though). Alex. -- 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
