On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:36:55PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 23 June 2016 at 14:04, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:33:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > >> Revise the content based on the v2 additions. This is kept as a separate > >> patch to avoid confusing those who have already reviewed the v1 series. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >> Suggested-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > [snip] > >> +Converting of-platdata to a useful form > >> +--------------------------------------- > >> + > >> +Of course it would be possible use the of-platdata directly in your driver > >> +whenever configuration information is required. However this meands that > >> the > > > > "means" > > > > [snip] > >> +The of-platdata struct contents is copied from the C structure data to the > > > > "is copied" -> "are copied" > > > > And thanks again for doing all of this! > > Obviously I still have a test to write, but other than that, what do > you think of this feature?
Well, I like it. But I'm also not great at spotting problems before we run into them sometimes. > I put quite a bit of info in the caveats. The benefit is clear but it > is also a bit wonky - e.g. the structure / member naming. I'm really a > little bit nervous about it all. Do you think we can make sure it is > used sparingly? Given the number of places (it feels like) that run in to, or nearly run in to size limits today in SPL with tiny-printf enabled, no, I can't say that I think this will be used sparingly. So is there anything we can do about the structure / member naming to make it less wonky? Or just wait and see how things work out in the end when people start using it more? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
