On 10/02/2013 01:26 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 08:56 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
On 10/01/2013 01:17 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:24 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
- Removed l2switch. It will be added later
Why?
I am not aware of bindings required for l2switch as we are not working
on the driver.
Earlier I thought of putting a place holder. but as you suggested to put
bindings in documentation.
It will be good if it is put by actual driver owner.
Is there a reason to believe the binding will be complicated?
Does any such "driver owner" exist yet?
I don't know, as I am unaware of l2switch driver.
+sata@220000 {
+ fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
+ fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x550>; /* SATA1LIODNR */
+};
+/include/ "qoriq-sata2-1.dtsi"
+sata@221000 {
+ fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
+ fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x554>; /* SATA2LIODNR */
+};
Whitespace
do we have any scripts which check for whitespace as checkpatch never
give any warning/error.
it is a very silly mistake which I am doing continuously :(
checkpatch doesn't check dts files.
Manual check :(
+/include/ "t1040si-post.dtsi"
Should at least have a comment indicating that eventually this should
hold the l2 switch node.
yes. Ideally it should be.
but if I put a comment then I believe this patch will not be completed.
it will think as a RFC.
as I believe putting of TODO is generally for RFC patches.
As is, one would wonder why the separate file exists at all.
The TODO is there whether you have a comment acknowledging it or
not. :-)
I agree. I will add a comments.
Regards,
Prabhakar
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
