From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:36:31 +0800
Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ARM ATTEND] Describing complex,
 non-probable system topologies
In-Reply-To: <20130801201823.GF23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <20130801183531.GB29831@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20130801192730.GC9174@kroah.com>
 <20130801193936.GD23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20130801201539.GA12291@kroah.com>
 <20130801201823.GF23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20130801203631.GA12802@kroah.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:18:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 04:15:39AM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > I'm not saying move away from DT at all, if it can be used to describe
> > stuff like this, wonderful.  Just please don't use platform_bus anymore
> > than you have to.
> 
> As far as that sentiment goes, it would have been nice if that was made
> more vocally ten years ago, because at that time I was the one trying to
> encourage people to think about creating appropriate bus types, and what
> I was being told was that no, bus types are something which are deprecated
> and platform bus is what should be used.

Was that me that said that?  I don't recall it at all, and if I did, I
was flat out wrong.  I've always said that platform_bus is a hack, and
should only be used as a "last resort".  Others have grabbed onto it as
the "only" way to do devices for embedded things because that is what
they were used to.

sorry,

greg k-h