Hello Niteesh,
thanks for the reminder and the patches. I pushed them.
Best regards
Christian
On 22/04/2021 05:54, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
Hello Christian,
Reminder to push the patches.
Thanks,
Niteesh
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:57 PM Christian Mauderer <o...@c-mauderer.de
<mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>> wrote:
Hello Niteesh,
looks good to me. I'll wait two or three days before pushing so that
others can review the libbsd patch too. Please ping me on Wednesday
if I
didn't push it by then.
Best regards
Christian
On 18/04/2021 17:19, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 4:54 PM Christian Mauderer
<o...@c-mauderer.de <mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>
> <mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de <mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>>> wrote:
>
> Hello Niteesh,
>
> sorry for not taking a look earlier.
>
> No problem
>
>
> The patches seem OK for me. Just a tiny change request:
>
> I know that I suggested the "rtems,path" for the device tree.
When
> testing I noted that we have the rtems-i2c driver in libbsd
which is
> more or less just a compatibility layer between libbsd and
RTEMS. This
> driver uses "rtems,i2c-path" instead of "rtems,path". Maybe
you could
> add one of these two solutions:
>
> 1. Either change "rtems,path" to "rtems,i2c-path" in your driver.
>
> 2. Or add "rtems,path" as an additional possible path to
> "libbsd/rtemsbsd/sys/dev/iicbus/rtems-i2c.c". Basically that
would just
> mean that in the error case of the current OF_getprop_alloc
you just
> try
> the "rtems,path" before failing.
>
> I really like the short and universal name of "rtems,path" so
I would
> prefer the second solution. But I would be OK with the first
one too.
>
>
> I have sent a patch for your preferred solution.
> Patches that are pending are:
> 1) https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html>
> <https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html>>
> 2) https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html>
> <https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html>>
> 3) https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html>
> <https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html
<https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html>>
>
> Thanks,
> Niteesh.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
> On 18/04/2021 06:20, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > ping.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:45 AM G S Niteesh Babu
> <niteesh...@gmail.com <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
<mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
<mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >
> > The following two patches update the Beagle BSP i2c
driver to use
> > device tree based initialization and the documentation
related to
> > it.
> >
> > G S Niteesh Babu (1):
> > bsps/beagle: Refactored i2c driver
> >
> > bsps/arm/beagle/i2c/bbb-i2c.c | 122
> ++++++++++++++++++------------
> > bsps/arm/beagle/include/bsp.h | 4 +
> > bsps/arm/beagle/include/bsp/i2c.h | 32 +-------
> > bsps/arm/beagle/start/bspstart.c | 51 +++++++++----
> > 4 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org>
<mailto:devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org>>
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
<http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
<http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>>
> >
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
