On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:36:03AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:13:57AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > > By exposing the details of hwmod structures > > > > to debugfs we can much more easily verify > > > > that changes to hwmod data is correct and won't > > > > cause regressions. > > > > > > > > The idea is that this can be used to check the > > > > state of one hwmod, verify hwmod sysc fields, etc. > > > > > > > > For example, this will be used to move some of > > > > the sysc fields to DT and later verify that they > > > > are correct pre- and post-patch. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > > > > > This one had a bunch of unnecessary includes and checkpatch issues > > > (below). I cleaned those up here and have queued the result (also below) > > > for v3.20. > > > > ... and, the patch doesn't even boot. Dropped. > > > > If you really want something like this to be merged, resend a version that > > boots, and has checkpatch warnings fixed and unnecessary includes dropped. > > Otherwise you're just wasting my time. > > you're using a really old version, though. There have been other > versions which are still under discussion. not to mention that this was an RFC, not meant for merging at the time it was sent. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
