Hi, On 24 May 2012 10:44, Cousson, Benoit <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/2/2012 7:42 AM, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote: >> >> Hi Omar, >> >> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 23:17:38, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote: >>> >>> To allow mailbox driver to function with device tree. >>> >>> Tested in OMAP4 and OMAP3. OMAP2 untested. >> >> >> I think the mailbox code needs a cleanup similar to what you >> had proposed earlier [1] before the device tree support is added. >> >> We probably need to decide whether the number of mailbox sub-modules >> should be part of hwmod attribute or come from device tree. IMO the >> static allocation of the mailboxes is better suited in the device-tree >> data. > > > Ideally yes, but that assumes we are supporting only DT boot method, which > is still not the case today. > > That being said, the driver might still be able to leverage DT if available > already. > > > This can be done later as well. > > Omar, > That's up to you. Thanks for the ack on the 2nd patch. Yes, I think these changes doesn't depend on the cleanup of the driver, they could be included prior to them. Regards, Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
