On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 02:51:43 -0600 Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 > > Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller > > > <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > > > > > > >> > > > >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't > > > >> seem to be any reason for it currently, and it creates > > > >> headaches with userspace being able to potentially use the > > > >> structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree > > > so it is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it > > > up once Andres reposts the series. > > > > > > g. > > > > Ok, I sent a new version of the phandle stuff (which was easier than > > expected, and doesn't affect any other patches). > > > > So to summarize, what's pending is: > > > > 1- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242041/ (sparc: stop exporting > > openprom.h header) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 2- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242601/ ([v3] sparc: convert > > various prom_* functions to use phandle) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 3- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141011/ (sparc: break out some > > PROM device-tree building code out into drivers/of) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 4- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141021/ (sparc: make > > drivers/of/pdt.c no longer sparc-only) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 5- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141031/ (of: no longer call > > prom_ functions directly; use an ops structure) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 6- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141041/ (of: add > > of_pdt namespace to pdt code) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 7- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141051/ (of: add > > package-to-path support to pdt) > > I've picked up 1-7 and am build testing now. > > > 8- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141071/ (x86: OLPC: add OLPC > > device-tree support) > > I'm not happy about the /proc/devicetree stuff in this patch. I would > rather see the proc_device_tree_init() call moved to initcall time > so that the need for an of_pdt_init_devicetree() hook goes away, but > there are a number of gotchas for dynamic tree users that I need to > investigate. Anyway, I'll get 1-7 tested and into linux-next while I > think about patch 8. > I'm failing to see why it's a problem to have the hook (which could just as easily be a generic proc_root_init_prepare hook called from proc_root_init(), allowing usage by various other subsystems), but okay. I'm not that familiar w/ the dynamic tree stuff; do you imagine this being an invasive change, or will it be as simple as just deferring the init call? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
