From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:31:31 +0000 Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies Message-Id: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nextPart3506900.3hJOejC6db" List-Id: References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --nextPart3506900.3hJOejC6db Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi David, On Friday 23 August 2013 12:11:11 David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:46:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Laurent, Hi Guennadi, Hi All, > > > > Olof has brought to my attention that there is some inconsistency > > in the way that compatibility strings for SHMobile are named and he > > has asked us to clean things up for v3.12. > > > > Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts/ I see that we have: > > > > 1. {gpio,pfc}-r8aXXXX and; > > 2. r8aXXXX-sdhi > > > > The inconsistency that Olof has asked us to resolve is that we > > should either use r8aXXXX- or -r8aXXXX. Not both. > > > > It seems to me that neither option is inherently better than the other > > so we should just choose the path of least resistance to make things > > consistent. > > > > Laurent, Guennadi, do you have any opinions on if it would > > be easier to change the GPIO and PFC compatibility strings; > > or to change the SDHI compatibility strings? > > > > Ideally I would like you to come to some sort of consensus and send > > patches. > > So, by all means clean this up in the dts. > > BUT, in keeping with the recent discussions on improving the DT > process, the corresponding drivers must continue to recognize both > forms, so that old DTs will still work correctly. Given the early state of DT support in arm/mach-shmobile, I'm pretty sure we have no DT-based systems in the wild. The old compatibility string could in my opinion just be dropped. > It's probably also worth putting a note about the deprecated form into > the binding description, too. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart --nextPart3506900.3hJOejC6db Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSF0geAAoJEIkPb2GL7hl19OUH/jg4jYurrM135cX1igMkXdVS jjff5vkjkTU+81pNx9iB5BX3GDa8r6VqZqDsZCmU7cutiGQB/NP04XoYdz6cIuwL RrZbkT066FzOpSiGwez48PBYMsdqc2bs1NNkN+TrwNASIqKZHdTUiwMN2c2FEMzz 1mBtw9oNpRC+jNMo+6b2xa/nXX/ST3zLccoTdTnViaJWUUtfKw7qNO/lTTW4TmBr I+MUUlWr60ewAL3iCK9J68+P0y5uFS5Ynuq9ok4h1hbF57Im0F7DmTiLmILLzIyc 3UL/s4M0krjSnhYnpTCajxirylC0cGhezPaEg2ERPYYCmxEzhb/rLsqPvuDt0zA= =K2EO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3506900.3hJOejC6db-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:31:31 +0200 Subject: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies In-Reply-To: <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi David, On Friday 23 August 2013 12:11:11 David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:46:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Laurent, Hi Guennadi, Hi All, > > > > Olof has brought to my attention that there is some inconsistency > > in the way that compatibility strings for SHMobile are named and he > > has asked us to clean things up for v3.12. > > > > Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts/ I see that we have: > > > > 1. {gpio,pfc}-r8aXXXX and; > > 2. r8aXXXX-sdhi > > > > The inconsistency that Olof has asked us to resolve is that we > > should either use r8aXXXX- or -r8aXXXX. Not both. > > > > It seems to me that neither option is inherently better than the other > > so we should just choose the path of least resistance to make things > > consistent. > > > > Laurent, Guennadi, do you have any opinions on if it would > > be easier to change the GPIO and PFC compatibility strings; > > or to change the SDHI compatibility strings? > > > > Ideally I would like you to come to some sort of consensus and send > > patches. > > So, by all means clean this up in the dts. > > BUT, in keeping with the recent discussions on improving the DT > process, the corresponding drivers must continue to recognize both > forms, so that old DTs will still work correctly. Given the early state of DT support in arm/mach-shmobile, I'm pretty sure we have no DT-based systems in the wild. The old compatibility string could in my opinion just be dropped. > It's probably also worth putting a note about the deprecated form into > the binding description, too. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: