From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:16:28 +0000 Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies Message-Id: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" List-Id: References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi David, >=20 > 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, > > >=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. > >=20 > > So, by all means clean this up in the dts. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Given the early state of DT support in arm/mach-shmobile, I'm pretty sure= we=20 > have no DT-based systems in the wild. The old compatibility string could = in my=20 > 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. --=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 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSGwDMAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSDPAQANDA+43iaZl/3TTWBmqAHtra dOoZ4noFda2SAt1yRyBRKX87i6LCcciUiTC0kRtZ9OTEUGiqtFB1uo3VV2PtXryS pKqrDLyDj2aZTod/OR4afoZq4xwQDGEyqP+2pJhZvj+2z+rpL3qwQbxcLqeL//I7 oO2a/Qz05I+lvzMidpG7Iejv5EMyLtRQMtxaJw8xfL3ETp9j0RqkPwKwTFYp+9tv 0mZIUqwAx7szq3r98FZ+MrdnvSlUxbVHkmhwIK6gmp9iFybIK2QL5V/f303K6Nfl YxiCMNCdBRgLxRqXaem5ieZ3e/gNI/glQIxI2I1cgvcfahN2fZ2rUb2hiTSVCpBu 93JUIq/RDANx/6RniDL0NXRv5QEnFrAvZbaxoz8Wbpsp+ZTrfCSECv4zKiAG+gXt iKICuEyD7nbId9u49mPhKUi39TFykQIWSTO6btb0Om2j5UOS0j2w5eX9ykir421f N0ixu8cEJ1eYiObLNr2a+s96cuCdWYTU5RQiUVAcsPp1c8/iWSB7DuY9w1sNqC5B 8djwFEl5RWORhdO1T84FwaQrCvVxZGs4fkAgofNmlNy2I2d4AjJJ+T/rfRiuJYp2 /diJ3/lb4z4eKopD/2WjZLNih5fEe9b/0S0uwZnNDHR8Klj0KJ1FYGtyEA21Da5F UXB5c+kQulOIIP+jMqVA =YKMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david@gibson.dropbear.id.au (David Gibson) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:16:28 +1000 Subject: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> Message-ID: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:16:28 +1000 Message-ID: <20130826071628.GA9120@voom.fritz.box> References: <20130822054639.GE11086@verge.net.au> <20130823021111.GA2792@voom.redhat.com> <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1721850.l3ebodSrXr@avalon> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Simon Horman , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Magnus Damm , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi David, >=20 > 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, > > >=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. > >=20 > > So, by all means clean this up in the dts. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Given the early state of DT support in arm/mach-shmobile, I'm pretty sure= we=20 > have no DT-based systems in the wild. The old compatibility string could = in my=20 > 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. --=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 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSGwDMAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSDPAQANDA+43iaZl/3TTWBmqAHtra dOoZ4noFda2SAt1yRyBRKX87i6LCcciUiTC0kRtZ9OTEUGiqtFB1uo3VV2PtXryS pKqrDLyDj2aZTod/OR4afoZq4xwQDGEyqP+2pJhZvj+2z+rpL3qwQbxcLqeL//I7 oO2a/Qz05I+lvzMidpG7Iejv5EMyLtRQMtxaJw8xfL3ETp9j0RqkPwKwTFYp+9tv 0mZIUqwAx7szq3r98FZ+MrdnvSlUxbVHkmhwIK6gmp9iFybIK2QL5V/f303K6Nfl YxiCMNCdBRgLxRqXaem5ieZ3e/gNI/glQIxI2I1cgvcfahN2fZ2rUb2hiTSVCpBu 93JUIq/RDANx/6RniDL0NXRv5QEnFrAvZbaxoz8Wbpsp+ZTrfCSECv4zKiAG+gXt iKICuEyD7nbId9u49mPhKUi39TFykQIWSTO6btb0Om2j5UOS0j2w5eX9ykir421f N0ixu8cEJ1eYiObLNr2a+s96cuCdWYTU5RQiUVAcsPp1c8/iWSB7DuY9w1sNqC5B 8djwFEl5RWORhdO1T84FwaQrCvVxZGs4fkAgofNmlNy2I2d4AjJJ+T/rfRiuJYp2 /diJ3/lb4z4eKopD/2WjZLNih5fEe9b/0S0uwZnNDHR8Klj0KJ1FYGtyEA21Da5F UXB5c+kQulOIIP+jMqVA =YKMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--