On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:44 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 20:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> > > > I can't see adding calls like this all over the tree just to solve a >> > > > bus-specific problem, you are adding of_* calls where they aren't >> > > > needed, or wanted, at all. >> >> > > This isn't bus specific, I'm not sure what makes you say that? >> >> > You are making it bus-specific by putting these calls all over the tree >> > in different bus subsystems semi-randomly for all I can determine. >> >> Do you mean firmware rather than bus here? I think that's the confusion >> I have... > > Certainly, if it literally is adding of_* calls then that would seem to > be gratuitously firmware-specific. Nothing should be using those these > days; any new code should be using the generic device property APIs > (except in special cases). See version 2 of the series[1] which did that. It became obvious that was pointless because the call paths ended up looking like this: Generic subsystem code -> DT look-up code -> fwnode_probe_device -> of_probe_device Rob [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/361137.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
