Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 06/11] fwnode xen spacific changes

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel