On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 2:48 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrey. > > > Feedback is welcome! > > I have looked through the patches - and nothing jumped at me. > A few places could use a newline but not worth a re-spin. > > I personal dislike filenames like "helpers.c" but thats pure bikeshedding. > One of my goals was to keep things as close to how they are in Linux as possible. That's how that file is called there, so you might have to take it with Mark Brown if you want to change that. > Looks good with the simple regulator support, which most likely will prove > useful later also for other drivers. > I hope we do not need deferred probe much... > > With deferred probe ported from the kernel, I wonder > how far we are from porting the devm_* functionlity too. > Not the I think this will share code with deferred probe, > just that this is another nice kernel idiom we could > benefit from in barebox. > Just to clarify, deferred probe was already a part of Barebox for a while, the patches in this series only change the fact that Barebox core now has a chance to "give up" on deferred device and declare it as non-existent. As for devm_* functions, not far at all. I don't think it would be difficult to port and I've been meaning to do that for a while, just never had an opportunity to do it so far. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
