Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: register a device for new remoteproc instances

[Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

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@10000000.of
> - 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@pengutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <ahmad@a3f.at>
> ---
>  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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox