From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:16:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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.
Hm, well, ok. Just remember to always err on the side of broad
compatiblity. We've become sloppy with incompatible DT updates and
its caused us a bunch of grief.
--
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
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: david@gibson.dropbear.id.au (David Gibson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:16:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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.
Hm, well, ok. Just remember to always err on the side of broad
compatiblity. We've become sloppy with incompatible DT updates and
its caused us a bunch of grief.
--
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: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130826/19bc76a8/attachment.sig>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:16:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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.
Hm, well, ok. Just remember to always err on the side of broad
compatiblity. We've become sloppy with incompatible DT updates and
its caused us a bunch of grief.
--
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
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-26 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-22 5:46 SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies Simon Horman
2013-08-22 5:46 ` Simon Horman
2013-08-22 10:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-22 10:43 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-23 0:19 ` Simon Horman
2013-08-23 0:19 ` Simon Horman
2013-08-27 17:34 ` Olof Johansson
2013-08-27 17:34 ` Olof Johansson
2013-08-27 17:34 ` Olof Johansson
2013-08-23 2:11 ` David Gibson
2013-08-23 2:11 ` David Gibson
2013-08-23 11:31 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-23 11:31 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-24 2:13 ` Simon Horman
2013-08-24 2:13 ` Simon Horman
2013-08-26 16:08 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-26 16:08 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-26 16:08 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-27 6:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-27 6:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-27 6:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-27 6:46 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-27 6:46 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-27 6:46 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-08-26 7:16 ` David Gibson [this message]
2013-08-26 7:16 ` David Gibson
2013-08-26 7:16 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.