Re: [PATCH] of: add ranges address translation for default bus

From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
	barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: add ranges address translation for default bus
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:40:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130617104055.GQ32299@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51BEE3AD.20406@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 09:47 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:50:30PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> >>On 06/13/13 14:48, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:38:19AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> >>>>On 06/13/13 11:25, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>>>>Sounds like a plan. Functions existing both in barebox and Linux should
> >>>>>behave the same way. However, if Linux turns out to do something silly
> >>>>>or (for our usecase) too bloated, we shouldn't do the same just because
> >>>>>Linux does it.
> >>pushed a branch you can have a first look at to
> >>
> >>git://github.com/shesselba/barebox-dove.git of-sync-v1
> >
> >I had a quick look at this branch. It has some really good stuff in it.
> >You should post it for a closer review if you consider it ready.
> 
> Ok, I've had another round of patches in branch of-sync-part2-v1. I will
> merge both and either send an RFC or merge in some clean-ups. I didn't
> provide stubs for !CONFIG_OF at some places.
> 
> It is already kind of huge patch, so I prefer sending it before more
> stuff gets in. Currently, it is more or less fully merged with Linux OF
> API wrt base.c.
> 
> Next would be to move code that should have been in common/oftree.c in
> the first place (of_add_initrd, of_print_nodes, ...), move out stuff to
> of/device.c and of/address.c.
> 
> I haven't looked into barebox' driver/device backend but realized that
> struct resource is attached to the device_node. Maybe it should also
> move to some other struct (device_d) ?

It already is attached to struct device_d. It should be easy to drop the
reference in struct device_node. I don't know why struct device_node has
the resources in it anyway, probably this happened during development
and I never thought about it again.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox