From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:06:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF1F145.2050408@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK=WgbbREXV8nkF4vh9iLUp1WQj2ZLYW6VG8Urmw9=roy63meQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/29/12 01:13, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com> wrote:
>> In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.
>>
>>> I recall seeing a thread where
>>> someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I
>>> can't find it anymore.
>> I also remembered a similar discussion at a plumbers mini-conf about
>> 2-3 years ago too, so I looked at device_type as an alternative to
>> class. The former looks somewhat simpler, but I couldn't find any
>> major advantage for using one over the other, and both seem to be in
>> use by many subsystems.
> Moving to device_type is so trivial that I gave it a spin (and moved
> to IDA too while at it):
Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
though. Is that requirement gone? If that requirement is still there I
would think we need something like a class or bus still.
Will you resend this as part of a series? It will be easier to review then.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:06:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF1F145.2050408@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK=WgbbREXV8nkF4vh9iLUp1WQj2ZLYW6VG8Urmw9=roy63meQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/29/12 01:13, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com> wrote:
>> In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.
>>
>>> I recall seeing a thread where
>>> someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I
>>> can't find it anymore.
>> I also remembered a similar discussion at a plumbers mini-conf about
>> 2-3 years ago too, so I looked at device_type as an alternative to
>> class. The former looks somewhat simpler, but I couldn't find any
>> major advantage for using one over the other, and both seem to be in
>> use by many subsystems.
> Moving to device_type is so trivial that I gave it a spin (and moved
> to IDA too while at it):
Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
though. Is that requirement gone? If that requirement is still there I
would think we need something like a class or bus still.
Will you resend this as part of a series? It will be easier to review then.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-02 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-26 7:36 [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 8:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 8:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 12:38 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 12:38 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-06-05 10:25 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-05 10:25 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 8:52 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 8:52 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 8:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-07-02 8:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-07-02 9:05 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 9:05 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 10:10 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 10:10 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 9:17 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 9:17 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 8:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 8:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 12:16 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 12:16 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 12:16 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-06-29 8:13 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-29 8:13 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 19:06 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2012-07-02 19:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-07-02 19:54 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 19:54 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-05 20:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-07-05 20:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-07-15 9:12 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 9:12 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FF1F145.2050408@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=fernando.lugo@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.