Hi Andrey. On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:49:19AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > 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, OK, and agreee on that. Thanks for the explanation. > > 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. Looks forward for the patches if you find the reason to do it. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
