On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:42:45AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 05:33:15PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

quoted

Hi Jason,

Sorry for the delayed review. I finally found some time off
to take a deeper look at this series.

So, despite the wrong subject this is v2 for:

"ARM: kirkwood: Remove kirkwood_setup_wins and rely on the DT binding"

Right? I took the liberty of fixing the subject.

Yes, sorry, mailer trouble. I finally got git send-email working here
so that shouldn't happen again :)
 

quoted

I think a small cover-letter would have been nice, just to have
some context about the three patches. I assume the series is:

ARM: kirkwood: Remove kirkwood_setup_wins and rely on the DT binding
ARM: kirkwood: Move the crypto node under the mbus node
ARM: kirkwood: Move the nand node under the mbus node

Yes, that looks right.

quoted

quoted

 		compatible = "marvell,kirkwood-mbus", "simple-bus";
 		#address-cells = <2>;
 		#size-cells = <1>;
+		/* If a board file needs to change this ranges it must replace it completely */

I'd rather have a longer comment in here, explaining why such
replacement is needed and how the 'ranges' entries are not inherited
in any way.

Generally I try to avoid explaining how a language works in
comments :) 

quoted

Other than that, the patch looks good:

Acked-by: Ezequiel Garcia <redacted>

And, in Openblocks-A6:

Tested-by: Ezequiel Garcia <redacted>

Did you test patch #2 as well? 

Well, I booted the board with the patch, but didn't do any crypto-specific
testings. That said, I don't have any strong opinion on the crypto-node moving
or splitting.

Have you worked that out?
-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com