On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 09:29 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > If you have specific issues with how this is done, please express them > > clearly. It's quite possible that there's some better way to do what > > Eddie is doing here, but without *construtive* feedback this is > > pointless. > > It feels like you duplicate approach which is done in OF generic case. > That is my concern. Though, if Wolfram is telling that is OK, I have > no objections. THe OF generic case is about discovering slaves underneath a port, not ports inside of a mulit-port master. I am not aware of a generic mechanism for the latter. We *could* make the ports sub-devices but it gets messy then to arbitrate the communication and deal with the common part. I've seen (and written) multi-port masters in the past that use a similar approach to what Eddie's doing and it works fine. > > I'm disappointed here because we have an example of somebody rather new > > producing what is overall pretty damn good code, > > That is true. His code much better than many I have seen before Thanks. Also thanks for taking the time to review. > > despite a few corner > > issues, and being (again) treated like crap. > > Sorry for that, life is harsh. > > > This isn't the right way to operate, and I believe this has been made > > clear many times before. > > Yes. Cheers, Ben. -- 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
