On 06/03/18 13:44, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 01/19/2018 12:21 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/device.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/device.h
index 6734ae8efd..f78482ca0c 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/device.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/device.h
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
enum device_type
{
DEV_DT,
+ DEV_ACPI,
You don't use DEV_ACPI in this patch. So why is there?
+ DEV_PCI,
};
struct dev_archdata {
@@ -18,8 +20,13 @@ struct device
enum device_type type;
#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE
struct dt_device_node *of_node; /* Used by drivers imported
from Linux */
As said on Sameer's patches, I was expecting a todo in the code after
the discussion about leave of_node here.
I think you are referring to https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9963109/
Could you please add what TODO you wish to add ?
I could not find any discussion on of_node in the mail chain
Usually when I say: "I was expecting ..." it means that was discussed on
a previous version. In that case it is "[RFC 2/6] arm64: Add definitions
for fwnode_handle".
Below the conversation:
Me: I am a bit surprised you don't rework struct dev. As of_node is now
redundant with fwnode.
Sameer: I agree that this will eventually be removed. I have kept this
in now just to maintain compatibility
(compilation and otherwise) with smmuv2 driver. I will add a comment to
indicate this. So that it can
be easily identified and remove when we do a final cleanup. Can I prefix
the comment with with XEN:TODO:?
Me: A TODO would be nice, but who is going to do the rework?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
