<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Hello Christian,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Reminder to push the patches.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thanks,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Niteesh</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:57 PM Christian Mauderer <<a href="mailto:oss@c-mauderer.de">oss@c-mauderer.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello Niteesh,<br>
<br>
looks good to me. I'll wait two or three days before pushing so that <br>
others can review the libbsd patch too. Please ping me on Wednesday if I <br>
didn't push it by then.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Christian<br>
<br>
On 18/04/2021 17:19, Niteesh G. S. wrote:<br>
> Hello Christian,<br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 4:54 PM Christian Mauderer <<a href="mailto:oss@c-mauderer.de" target="_blank">oss@c-mauderer.de</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:oss@c-mauderer.de" target="_blank">oss@c-mauderer.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hello Niteesh,<br>
> <br>
> sorry for not taking a look earlier.<br>
> <br>
> No problem<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The patches seem OK for me. Just a tiny change request:<br>
> <br>
> I know that I suggested the "rtems,path" for the device tree. When<br>
> testing I noted that we have the rtems-i2c driver in libbsd which is<br>
> more or less just a compatibility layer between libbsd and RTEMS. This<br>
> driver uses "rtems,i2c-path" instead of "rtems,path". Maybe you could<br>
> add one of these two solutions:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Either change "rtems,path" to "rtems,i2c-path" in your driver.<br>
> <br>
> 2. Or add "rtems,path" as an additional possible path to<br>
> "libbsd/rtemsbsd/sys/dev/iicbus/rtems-i2c.c". Basically that would just<br>
> mean that in the error case of the current OF_getprop_alloc you just<br>
> try<br>
> the "rtems,path" before failing.<br>
> <br>
> I really like the short and universal name of "rtems,path" so I would<br>
> prefer the second solution. But I would be OK with the first one too.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I have sent a patch for your preferred solution.<br>
> Patches that are pending are:<br>
> 1) <a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html</a> <br>
> <<a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066458.html</a>><br>
> 2) <a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html</a> <br>
> <<a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066460.html</a>><br>
> 3) <a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html</a> <br>
> <<a href="https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-April/066629.html</a>><br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Niteesh.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Best regards<br>
> <br>
> Christian<br>
> <br>
> On 18/04/2021 06:20, Niteesh G. S. wrote:<br>
> > ping.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:45 AM G S Niteesh Babu<br>
> <<a href="mailto:niteesh.gs@gmail.com" target="_blank">niteesh.gs@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:niteesh.gs@gmail.com" target="_blank">niteesh.gs@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:niteesh.gs@gmail.com" target="_blank">niteesh.gs@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:niteesh.gs@gmail.com" target="_blank">niteesh.gs@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > The following two patches update the Beagle BSP i2c driver to use<br>
> > device tree based initialization and the documentation related to<br>
> > it.<br>
> ><br>
> > G S Niteesh Babu (1):<br>
> > bsps/beagle: Refactored i2c driver<br>
> ><br>
> > bsps/arm/beagle/i2c/bbb-i2c.c | 122<br>
> ++++++++++++++++++------------<br>
> > bsps/arm/beagle/include/bsp.h | 4 +<br>
> > bsps/arm/beagle/include/bsp/i2c.h | 32 +-------<br>
> > bsps/arm/beagle/start/bspstart.c | 51 +++++++++----<br>
> > 4 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > 2.17.1<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > devel mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:devel@rtems.org" target="_blank">devel@rtems.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:devel@rtems.org" target="_blank">devel@rtems.org</a>><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
> <<a href="http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a>><br>
> ><br>
> <br>
</blockquote></div></div>