lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/5] phy: qcom-qmp: Utilize fully-specified DT registers
On 2018-10-25 02:06, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:29 AM Vivek Gautam
> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch.
>> I am starting to think that the driver is heavily relying on the
>> resource indices to request
>> all these areas ioremapped. Is it a good way forward that driver and
>> the
>> dt bindings are
>> chained together?
>> Should we rather switch to requesting these resources by some names?
>>
>> Rob can comment on this possibly.
>
> I thought about suggesting that but I know that Rob really doesn't
> like accessing register ranges by name [1]. Even in cases where you
> reference things by name Rob likes there to be a fully defined order
> and once you have a fully defined order you don't really need the
> names unless you have more than one optional register range.

Right, I second that. I was looking for options. :)

>
> In any case, Rob already gave his review to Evan's bindings change.
> See:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181023002903.GA16854@bogus

Yea, I saw that too.

Best regards
Vivek

>
> ...so my vote would be to keep it as Evan's patch series has it and
> not try to bikeshed it.
>
>
>> Reviewed-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
>
> [1]
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAL_Jsq+MMunmVWqeW9v2RyzsMKP+=kMzeTHNMG4JDHM7Fy0HBg@mail.gmail.com
>
> -Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-25 08:16    [W:0.053 / U:3.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site