On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:56:53AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > On 10/25/2011 12:19 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > >In general, I'm inclined to accept this patch as we talked about at > >plumbers. However, this particular hunk gives me pause as there is > >still the objection that Russell raised about the (ab)use of r->name > >for insert the resource name. > > > >So, no I won't reject this patch, but I first what to have some idea > >of what the plan is to migrate away from using r->name. Perhaps we > >can talk about this tomorrow. > > OK, sure, let's discuss about that. > But I still think that Russell's concern is not related at all with > this patch. That means that it should be fixed separately if needed. > It can be done before or after, but this is somehow orthogonal to > the DT reg-names support problem. Right, but this patch does add more infrastructure code manuipulating that field, so I'd like to have a plan for fixing the problem before committing this. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
