On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > struct rproc has a device_d dev field, but so far it was unregistered. > The implementation had a few downsides: > > - dev_printf prints NULL, because the unique_name of the device is NULL > - The name used by firmwareload is the device tree node's name, which > might be unnecessarily verbose, e.g. mlahb:m4@xxxxxxxxxxx > - All remoteproc devices are given the same (unused) name and index > > Fix these by registering a device for the remoteproc and using it where > appropriate. While at it, allow the remoteproc name to come from a > device tree alias as well. > > This breaks user behavior in that firmwareload now uses the alias or > remoteprocN to reference the remoteproc instance. This is probably > acceptable as the driver is a very recent addition. > > Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <ahmad@xxxxxx> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Applied, thanks Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
