On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 在 2016/3/30 19:38, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >>> One suggestion for both patches: you could remove name from struct >>> dwapb_port_property and get rid of pp->name and nobody would miss it. >>> All it is used for is some dev_err's so the device info gets printed >>> anyway. For example (if I leave the irq out of the DT) >>> >>> gpio-dwapb ff708000.gpio: no irq for bank /soc/gpio@ff708000/gpio-controller@0 >>> >>> is redundant. The only additional info here from the name is the port >>> index. That could be added to the messages without having to get the >>> name through the two property/of methods. >>> >> >> Good suggestion! That'll make patches and code cleaner. >> >> Perhaps separate prepended patch? >> > Hi Alan/Andy, > > It sounds good, I will follow this suggestion and do a test. But, what's the > "separate prepended patch" mean? Preparatory patch which goes first in the series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
