On 07/05/2016 06:59 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote: > 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.
Either way is fine with me really, we can drop this patch, add it later, not add it, up to you guys. I think the 3 others could go in as they are pretty self contained, your call David. -- Florian
