[PATCH v2 00/14] improve OF_PLATDATA support

[Walter Lozano]

On 23/6/20 11:00, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 08:56, Walter Lozano <walter.lozano at collabora.com> wrote:
>> When using OF_PLATDATA dtbs are converted to C structs in order to save
>> space as we can remove both dtbs and libraries from TPL/SPL binaries.
>>
>> This patchset tries to improve its support by overcoming some limitations
>> in the current implementation
>>
>> First, the support for scan and check for valid driver/aliases is added
>> in order to generate U_BOOT_DEVICE entries with valid driver names.
>>
>> Secondly, the way information about linked noded (phandle) is generated
>> in C structs is improved in order to make it easier to get a device
>> associated to its data.
>>
>> Lastly the support for the property cd-gpios is added, which is used to
>> configure the card detection gpio on MMC is added.
>>
>> This implementation is based in discussion in [1], [2] and [3]
>>
>> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1249198/
>> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=167495&state=*
>> [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=176759&state=*
>>
>> Walter Lozano (14):
>>    drivers: rename drivers to match compatible string
>>    dtoc: add missing code comments
>>    dtoc: add support to scan drivers
>>    dtoc: add option to disable warnings
>>    dm: doc: update of-plat with the support for driver aliases
>>    core: drop const for struct driver_info
>>    core: extend struct driver_info to point to device
>>    dtoc: extend dtoc to use struct driver_info when linking nodes
>>    dm: doc: update of-plat with new phandle support
>>    dtoc: update tests to match new platdata
>>    sandbox: Move section u_boot_list to make it RW
>>    arm: dts: include gpio nodes for card detect
>>    dtoc: update dtb_platdata to support cd-gpios
>>    dtoc add test for cd-gpios
>>
> One quick point - can you please check the line lengths in the Python
> code? It looks like some of the lines are over 80cols. That's OK if
> you are trying to avoid skipping a string which is the first
> parameter, but otherwise, it should be possible to avoid it.
>

Sure. I thought checkpatch.pl would warn me, but it looks it didn't. 
Thanks for pointing the issue.

Regards,

Walter