On Friday 20 June 2014 13:11:37 Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > > Unfortunately I lost Jingoo's email from my Inbox. So I cut-n-paste the comment from > > internet and respond. > > > > Jingoo Han wrote:- > > ============================================================================= > > I think so, too. > > > > DT maintainers and arch maintainers should review the following > > dt bindings. > > .../devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt | 42 ++ > > .../devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-keystone.txt | 56 +++ > > Generic PHY maintainer (Kishon Vijay Abraham I) should review the > > following phy driver. > > drivers/phy/phy-keystone-serdes.c > > > >> > >> I'm looking for acks from Mohit and/or Jingoo for the pci/host > >> changes, and from Arnd for the devicetree/bindings changes. > >> > >> Adding these "-dw-3_64" files is sort of ugly. If that code is only > >> used by keystone, maybe it could just be moved to pci-keystone.c? But > >> I'll defer to Mohit and Jingoo on that and the way you modify > >> pcie-designware.c. > > > > I agree with Bjorn Helgaas's opinion. These three "-dw-3_64" files > > look terrible! I don't have a good way to handle this; however, > > moving this code to pci-keystone.c looks better. > > ====================================================================== > > > > The original RFC I had submitted had all of the application space register > > handling code as part of the Keystone PCI driver. As per Arnd's comment (See > > my change log against v1), the code was moved to a separate file so that > > the next driver that has same version of the DW hw could re-use this code. > > I agree with Arnd and moved the code to v_3_65 specific files. What is > > your proposal? Do you have objection to the file name? or it's content? > > > > If objection is on the file name, please suggest alternate names. If you > > are okay with the file name, and doesn't like the code, it will be helpful > > to review the code and provide specific comments against the patch itself > > so that I can address the same. > > > Arnd suggestion was to have the version 3.65 code in generic place since > its IP specific and just in case some other vendor using the same version > can leverage the code. > > Concern here seems toe really those name of the files. I can't think of > any other appropriate name. We should definitely keep the version in the DT "compatible" strings wherever we know it. Regarding a better file name, I have no idea. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
