Hi Stefano, > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > I would not block this series on the renaming for existing property (what > > matter is the new ones are consistent with the discussion). The renaming > could > > be done afterwards. I would even say post the feature freeze on Friday > because > > this could be considered as a bug fix (assuming you agree as the release > > manager :)). > > I very much agree that we should be consistent. Consistency aside, I > would prefer *not* to introduce #xen,static-heap-address-cells and > #xen,static-heap-size-cells and instead reuse the regular #address-cells > and #size-cells. I think there is no reason why we shouldn't. > > I was about to write something about it a couple of days ago but then I > noticed that we had already introduced #xen,static-mem-address-cells and > #xen,static-mem-size-cells. In order to be consistent I didn't say > anything and gave my ack. > > But actually I think it is better to get rid of them all. I think we > should: > > 1) do not introduce #xen,static-heap-address-cells and > #xen,static-heap-size-cells in this series, instead rely on > #address-cells and #size-cells. Please write in the binding that the > number of address cells and size cells of xen,static-heap is determined > by the parent #address-cells and #size-cells. (It has to be the parent > because that is how #address-cells and #size-cells are defined.)
Ack, I will do in v5, also drop your previous ack so you can take a look again. > > 2) Also remove "#xen,static-mem-address-cells" and > "#xen,static-mem-size-cells", and also use #address-cells and > #size-cells for xen,static-mem as well. I think we should do that in > this release for consistency. Any volunteers? :-) I will add a new patch in the end of this series for static-mem cleanup. This can be merged later as a bug fix according to the discussion with Julien. Kind regards, Henry > > It is not going to break anything because, not only static-mem is tech > preview, but also it is very likely that if someone was using > #xen,static-heap-address-cells it would be setting it to the same value > as #address-cells. So in the vast majority of cases it would continue to > work as expected (not that we couldn't change it anyway, given that it > is a tech preview.) > > So I am aligned with Julien on this.
