On 11/17/2013 06:03 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
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).
... and that patch is very likely to not make it, for (I think) valid
reasons. Thus I'm not quite sure where we are with this series now.
--
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
