On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:31:07 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are other users for the proc DT functions.
> Export them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]>
Hi Pantelis.
Patches 1 & 2 look good. No comments there.
This patch bothers me. The manipulation of the proc entries is part and
parcel of adding and removing nodes. The real problem seems to be that
the node addition/removal APIs need to be made usable by the overlay
code.
g.
Hi Grant,
The 3rd patch is in preparation for some patches I have in WIP that would allow
drivers to set notifications for properties that are changed in runtime.
I think that since you have the all configuration taking place via DT and you
have a method to alter DT properties in run-time via /proc/device-tree, it's quite
straightforward to be able to alter runtime behavior via the same mechanism.
I.e. if you have some property that controls a devices behavior, it's intuitive that
when you modify that property, the device's state changes accordingly.
Regards
-- Pantelis
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:31:07 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are other users for the proc DT functions.
>> Export them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]>
>
> Hi Pantelis.
>
> Patches 1 & 2 look good. No comments there.
>
> This patch bothers me. The manipulation of the proc entries is part and
> parcel of adding and removing nodes. The real problem seems to be that
> the node addition/removal APIs need to be made usable by the overlay
> code.
>
> g.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:42:32 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> The 3rd patch is in preparation for some patches I have in WIP that would allow
> drivers to set notifications for properties that are changed in runtime.
Okay, submit it with that series then please.
g.