Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] of: move phandle/ihandle into types.h and exportto userspace

[Andres Salomon]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:27:45 -0600
Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:45:57AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:36:50 -0600
> > 
> > > Weird.  Yeah, no other platforms expect to get a phandle type
> > > definition from the kernel headers.  The only thing driving this
> > > conversation is from arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild:
> > > 
> > > header-y += openprom.h
> > 
> > It was probably at one point for the sake of asm/openpromio.h but
> > that header has no dependencies on openprom.h
> > 
> > The only hit I can find in google code search, for non-kernel code,
> > is the SILO bootloader.
> > 
> > But that tree includes it's own copy of include/asm/openprom.h so
> > the actual kernel copy isn't even used.
> > 
> > I'd say we can stop exporting that header and also therefore not
> > worry about making phandle_t visible to userspace.
> 
> Yay!  That simplifies everything, and I believe it also means that the
> phandle/ihandle definitions can remain where they currently are in
> linux/of.h
> 
> Andres, can you post an updated series that includes removing
> openprom.h from the header export list?
> 

Sure, I'll just need to rework/retest the build.  I've already done
that with the openprom.h-removal patch (which was just sent).

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/