From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: moinejf@free.fr (Jean-Francois Moine) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:19:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] DRM: Armada: add support for drm tda19988 driver In-Reply-To: References: <20131006220728.GG12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007111807.5e86ea6e@armhf> <20131007094404.GI12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007124820.2189a4c3@armhf> <20131007110902.GL12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20131008111913.09bfe93e@armhf> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:59:39 -0400 Rob Clark wrote: > Jean-Fran?ois, just as an aside, I really don't think code that can be > shared, like tda998x, should encode a DT requirement.. there are > plenty of platforms that don't use DT (arm isn't everything, and last > I heard aarch64 was going to be ACPI). > > Beyond that, it is a driver decision whether or not to support only-DT > or DT + other.. and as long as there is a common board which can use > the driver but which is not DT, there is probably a compelling reason > to still support the non-DT case. Rob, The Cubox is an open platform, and I use it just like a desktop PC. When its required drivers will be in the mainline, I will do the same as I do with PCs: I will not recompile a specific kernel each time there are kernel bugs or security issues. Instead, I will just upgrade my system from my distributor (Debian), and, in the packages, there will be a generic mvebu kernel as there is already one for Marvell Armada 370/xp, Freescale iMX5x/iMX6 (linux-image-3.10-3-armmp). But, for that, all the Cubox specific stuff must be described in a DT. -- Ken ar c'henta? | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/