From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peter@hurleysoftware.com (Peter Hurley) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:34:35 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] of: DT quirks infrastructure In-Reply-To: <9EDB5290-5C9F-42C1-826A-B38CC8C01F9B@konsulko.com> References: <1424271576-1952-3-git-send-email-pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> <20150218154106.GC29429@leverpostej> <20150218173115.GG29429@leverpostej> <76BD1B22-BAED-4205-9B34-186907CE0217@konsulko.com> <54E613E7.2020405@gmail.com> <670D0881-DBF0-45E8-A502-A6DB2B77A750@konsulko.com> <54E61DD2.3060002@gmail.com> <53F2F94C-0C43-4A54-B8CD-EEC454A0AC19@konsulko.com> <54E742F2.80506@hurleysoftware.com> <20150220143533.GA29908@odux.rfo.atmel.com> <54E74BF6.208@hurleysoftware.com> <54E751BF.3000604@hurleysoftware.com> <9EDB5290-5C9F-42C1-826A-B38CC8C01F9B@konsulko.com> Message-ID: <54E7621B.6040100@hurleysoftware.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/20/2015 10:38 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> On Feb 20, 2015, at 17:24 , Peter Hurley wrote: >> >> On 02/20/2015 10:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 17:00 , Peter Hurley wrote: >>>> >>>> On 02/20/2015 09:35 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote: [...] >>>>> As you said, we can imagine many reasons to have a failure during the >>>>> production, having several DTB files will increase the risk. >>>> >>>> It's interesting that you don't see the added complexity of open-coding >>>> the i2c driver or mixing DTS fragments for different designs as increased risk >>>> (for us all). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You don?t have to use it. >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile >>> index 5d27dfd..02129e7 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile >>> @@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_CRANEBOARD) += board-am3517crane.o >>> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_SBC3530) += board-omap3stalker.o >>> >>> +# DT quirks >>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC),) >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_AM33XX) += am33xx-dt-quirks.o >>> +endif >> >> Won't this automatically be included on my Black that supports DT overlays? >> > > Yes it will. It is a grand total of 498 lines of code, and the total size of > the code segment is about 2.2K. > > You do realize that you?re probably booting a multi-platform kernel on the > black right? Including things for all 2xxx/3xxx and 44xx platforms? > For instance: > >> ~/ti/kernels/linux-github.git $ wc -l arch/arm/mach-omap2/*44xx*.c >> 443 arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains44xx_data.c >> 526 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cminst44xx.c >> 251 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c >> 250 arch/arm/mach-omap2/dpll44xx.c >> 4864 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c >> 295 arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c >> 358 arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomains44xx_data.c >> 62 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm_mpu44xx.c >> 770 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm44xx.c >> 210 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c >> 117 arch/arm/mach-omap2/vc44xx_data.c >> 130 arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltagedomains44xx_data.c >> 104 arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp44xx_data.c >> 8380 total > > I bet those things are far larger than 2.2K. And I also bet that in the > tradeoff analysis that the board maintainer did things came down to > increasing complexity so that he can consolidate the kernels for all the > other platforms he has to support besides the black. Not that it really matters, but I'm not using any of that. >>> Some people really do though. As for increased risk >>> I expect to see arguments instead of a statement. >> >> No one is wasting your time with random arguments. Please keep your tone civil. >> > > A statement like 'increasing risk for all of us' is very open ended. What is > the risk? How much of it exists? My point was simply that this trades reduced complexity in one area with increased complexity in another area. For you, that trade-off is worth it, but for others, not so much. FWIW, I agree that some mechanism is required to support the other use cases. I just don't think ease of manufacturing, when the submit configuration is the BeagleBone, is where I would hang my hat. > If I offended you I?m really sorry though, I meant no such thing. In re-reading it, I realize I shouldn't have taken offense. Thanks anyway for the apology. Regards, Peter Hurley