Hi Bjorn, >> On 08/11/2016 02:31 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Suman Anna wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/10/2016 04:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>> On Wed 10 Aug 14:04 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/10/2016 03:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed 10 Aug 12:37 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Lee, Bjorn, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/10/2016 12:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue 19 Jul 08:49 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - of_rproc_by_index(): look-up and obtain a reference to a rproc >>>>>>>>>> using the DT phandle "rprocs" and a index. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - of_rproc_by_name(): 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'm happy with this, so I whipped up a binding document describing our >>>>>>>>> two new properties. Waiting for an opinion on that before I merge this. One last comment on this is the return code convention change on these rproc_get APIs. I am fine in general with returning ERR_PTRs, but most of the remoteproc code is using NULL checking for rproc. If you remember the discussion back during the hwspinlock DT conversion [1], Ohad preferred to return NULL, and that's why even the rproc_get_by_phandle was returning NULL. We ought to make this consistent across the board if we want to make this switch. regards Suman [1] http://marc.info/?t=138965891200008 -- 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
