From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 02:11:11 +0000 Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies Message-Id: <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0F1p//8PRICkK4MW" List-Id: References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:46:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > Hi Laurent, Hi Guennadi, Hi All, >=20 > 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. >=20 > Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts/ I see that we have: >=20 > 1. {gpio,pfc}-r8aXXXX and; > 2. r8aXXXX-sdhi >=20 > The inconsistency that Olof has asked us to resolve is that we > should either use r8aXXXX- or -r8aXXXX. Not both. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. It's probably also worth putting a note about the deprecated form into the binding description, too. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSFsS/AAoJEGw4ysog2bOSctUP/1v/hIIuRRaE2qFsK7JgERbU 8NCRyhkRXNeqRn9mm4+NTLfE0IYfhpa7o3U5UdLv7hRzJed1IFoLqyI6+WIRbYhF 8V8TrCms1x7rOrsJmJJUymHVM12t2orPxALYBAHExlwO+5E7KvwLdJ/SoT27+HW6 CzkDy0YcwMer95f8Uek66C3td95+9jaRT13AJJ5IkJCm5c63GNPx9aG7angUH4gx 5eAAAipJxkimy2tZYQ8F3S0eikqr6SzVIWxLmZyGBPlH/BtRsKv6eJl00FaGgDcw S0OfpdVN2/Qzc/RgAi0SEXWwoLmYe9lH7ig0LI2RdkncV0S8TRqHNWVhwKeA6Lww yS4ryJH+zpiKKCCIfdkuGpxFA7Ao9bXoGs22f5Jt2cSWrGrClZBss/ZrAczl+auH Y/giRmPi00fghh6nwNbHlwrGks780CdP37l0opKxnB98tK/q9e3gKbFuk7YCOyje BPnB464mhlMUmR5bLopHIprgdXE2ZNFiuwpigDRtNmYlX+8i3MpHOQkXff74OI+c IibXKkNAl0lf4+Y8JQB081gpKuEfrjn01ObZFTtCV6C1/IT761VuufcpDmUCbLzu IIZGHlu17LY7/AM5NZFUdPg1LvvX7IMxEc5ONcc7ldFHIQGkVKS+RCx7U59NZ90u cx/qgScEr0MPSS4Wmgwh =xlPp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david@gibson.dropbear.id.au (David Gibson) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:11:11 +1000 Subject: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies In-Reply-To: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> Message-ID: <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. It's probably also worth putting a note about the deprecated form into the binding description, too. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: