On Tue 10 May 07:16 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 06 May 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Thu 05 May 06:29 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > - of_rproc_byindex(): look-up and obtain a reference to a rproc > > > using the DT phandle "rprocs" and a index. > > > > > > - of_rproc_byname(): lookup and obtain a reference to a rproc > > > using the DT phandle "rprocs" and "rproc-names". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > I like the idea of having these helpers, but we already have > > rproc_get_by_phandle() so these helpers should be built upon that rather > > than adding the additional list. > > Since this is a framework consideration, don't you think it would be > better to standardise the phandle name? This is common practice when > coding at a subsystem level. Some in use examples include; "clocks", > "power-domains", "mboxes", "dmas", "phys", "resets", "gpios", etc. > > Considering the aforementioned examples, I figured "rprocs" would be > suitable. > To summarize our chat for the record and others. I'm definitely in favour of this and think "rprocs" and "rproc-names" sounds good. My comment was only regarding the duplicated implementation. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
