Hi,
Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 07/05/2016 03:36 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Make it clear that these functions take a device_node structure pointer
>>
>> Hi Florian
>>
>> Didn't we agree that we would only support a single device via a C
>> coded platform data structure?
>
> That is true for the devices I know about, both in and out of tree,
> however, while discussing offline with Vivien it seemed like there was a
> potential need for having a x86-based platform which could need that,
> Vivien do you think this platform could be in-tree one day (if not already)?
This customer platform is not mainlined yet and I cannot say today if it
will be. However it is likely to get a new revision soon with 3
interconnected 6352 hanging the x86 Baytrail.
DT on x86 is possible, but not straight-forward, and thanks to Florian's
work the pdata support is almost there for free.
>> All the functions you are renaming will never be called in that
>> case. So i think they can retain there names. You have no need to add
>> none device node equivalents.
>>
>> So lets drop this patch.
The patch is not big and I think it doesn't hurt to add that explicit
suffix, I'd keep the patch in the series.
Thanks,
Vivien
