On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 08:56 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:

On 10/01/2013 01:17 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:24 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:

quoted

     - Removed l2switch. It will be added later

Why?

I am not aware of bindings required for l2switch as we are not working 
on the driver.
Earlier I thought of putting a place holder. but as you suggested to put 
bindings in documentation.
It will be good if it is put by actual driver owner.

Is there a reason to believe the binding will be complicated?

Does any such "driver owner" exist yet?

quoted

quoted

+sata@220000 {
+			fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
+			fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x550>; /* SATA1LIODNR */
+};
+/include/ "qoriq-sata2-1.dtsi"
+sata@221000 {
+			fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
+			fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x554>; /* SATA2LIODNR */
+};

Whitespace

do we have any scripts which check for whitespace as checkpatch never 
give any warning/error.
it is a very silly mistake which I am doing continuously :(

checkpatch doesn't check dts files.

quoted

quoted

+/include/ "t1040si-post.dtsi"

Should at least have a comment indicating that eventually this should
hold the l2 switch node.

yes. Ideally it should be.
but if I put a comment then I believe this patch will not be completed. 
it will think as a RFC.
as I believe putting of TODO is generally for RFC patches.

As is, one would wonder why the separate file exists at all.

The TODO is there whether you have a comment acknowledging it or
not. :-)

-Scott