On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 September 2015 10:17:00 Lee Jones wrote: > > <hijacking> > > > > That doesn't work for middle-layer drivers such as Remoteproc, where > > it doesn't have its own associated firmwares. Remoteproc's job is > > simply to load the firmware. It doesn't care which version of the ABI > > that particular binary uses, and has no reason to. Ideally, I guess > > the Remoteproc client should be providing the firmware name, but why > > should the client care who or what was used to load the firmware? > > > > </hijacking> > > > > Does remoteproc use request_firmware() then?
Yes ... > If not, it's irrelevant to this discussion. ... but even if it didn't, it would still be relevant, as it's a "should firmware names be in DT" discussion. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
