Re: [PATCH/RFC] ARM: shmobile: Koelsch DT serial integration prototype

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Magnus,

On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:07:25 Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 21 April 2014 10:31:14 Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> From: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
> >> 
> >> A simple serial port integration prototype that happens to
> >> target Koelsch. Written to propose how to move one step closer
> >> to integrate DT support for serial ports on mach-shmobile.
> > 
> > I think you've over-engineering it. I would just switch serial devices to
> > DT in one go, like we do for all other devices.
> 
> I agree about the risk of over-engineering! =)
> 
> At the same time I would like to integrate your serial DT support as soon as
> possible. Order wise I'd like to integrate your serial DT support before
> phasing out legacy board code. We can of course discuss the order, but if we
> first integrate serial DT then we end up with 3 different serial cases

The fact that we even have 3 different cases (DT only, C DT reference and C 
legacy) shows that there's a problem. We started with C code that we forked 
into C DT reference code instead of porting the C code over to DT, and now we 
want to keep using platform devices in the C DT reference code ? Come on... 
What's the next step, introducing new C DT reference-but-better board files ? 
:-) The C DT reference board files need to be ported to DT or dropped 
altogether right now. Any intermediate solution is just asking for trouble.

> since legacy does not use DT for "regular devices" at all. This seems quite
> messy in my mind, so with this proposal I hope to let all us upstream
> developers focus on the "DT-only board code" case that should move forward
> unrestricted, and at the same time keep the C board code as-is serial port
> wise but also start phasing out more aggressively.
> 
> I'm also considering handling timers the same. The point is to allow
> unrestricted development of "DT-only board code" and still limit the
> amount of churn for legacy to a bare minimum.

Seriously ? Count me out on that...

> Let us discuss more face to face at ELC!

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart