From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:58:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20141007165835.GE27216@leverpostej> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <543412F7.8040909-VoJi6FS/r0vR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Rob Landley Cc: Guenter Roeck , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org" , "devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-alpha-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-am33-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-cris-kernel-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org" , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-hexagon-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-m32r-ja-rQhvJZKUsGBRYuoOT4C5/9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org" , "linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent > > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented > > in Linux. > > So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should > not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source > repository. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:58:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Message-Id: <20141007165835.GE27216@leverpostej> List-Id: References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> In-Reply-To: <543412F7.8040909-VoJi6FS/r0vR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Rob Landley Cc: Guenter Roeck , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "adi-buildroot-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org" , "devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-alpha-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-am33-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-cris-kernel-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org" , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-hexagon-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-m32r-ja-rQhvJZKUsGBRYuoOT4C5/9i2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org" , "linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent > > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented > > in Linux. > > So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should > not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source > repository. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:59:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:60028 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010625AbaJGQ7BKObjf (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:59:01 +0200 Received: from leverpostej (leverpostej.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.151]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id s97Gwdwo009466; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:58:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:58:35 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Rob Landley Cc: Guenter Roeck , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "lguest@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-am33-list@redhat.com" , "linux-cris-kernel@axis.com" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org" , "openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net" , "user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-metag@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Message-ID: <20141007165835.GE27216@leverpostej> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 43069 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: mark.rutland@arm.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent > > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented > > in Linux. > > So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should > not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source > repository. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:58:35 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings Message-ID: <20141007165835.GE27216@leverpostej> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> Cc: "linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org" , "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , "linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org" , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "lguest@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , "linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Guenter Roeck , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-am33-list@redhat.com" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-metag@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-cris-kernel@axis.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent > > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented > > in Linux. > > So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should > not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source > repository. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:58:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings In-Reply-To: <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <543412F7.8040909@landley.net> Message-ID: <20141007165835.GE27216@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent > > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented > > in Linux. > > So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should > not be specific to Linux. Merely hosted in the Linux kernel source > repository. Precisely. If nothing else as a general guideline this keeps us honest, and prevents us from embedding arbitrary implementation details into bidnings that cause pain later when we want to change things at either end. There are already otehr users of these bindings, so we can't really claim they're strictly Linux-specific anyhow. > Well that's certainly a point of view. As far as I am aware, it's the point of view shared by the device tree maintainers, and it's been that way for a while. I don't really follow your concern. For one thing were this followed more strictly this file wouldn't need patching at all to correct for this Linux-internal rework... Thanks, Mark.