From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: laura@labbott.name (Laura Abbott)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:18:57 -0800
Subject: ION DTS changes for HiKey in -next
In-Reply-To: <20160109050503.GA4489@kroah.com>
References: <20160107173744.GJ6588@sirena.org.uk>
 <20160108050214.GD30293@kroah.com> <20160108124439.GL6588@sirena.org.uk>
 <20160108135552.GE3097@leverpostej> <568FFC8B.3090101@labbott.name>
 <20160109050503.GA4489@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <5693C7E1.7080807@labbott.name>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 1/8/16 9:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:14:35AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 1/8/16 5:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:44:39PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 09:02:14PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:37:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I was just looking at DTs in -next and noticed that there is a patch
>>>>>> 59dfafd03fc (arm64: dts: Add dts files to enable ION on Hi6220 SoC)
>>>>>> which adds at DT doing something for ION.  Are we sure this should be
>>>>>> going into the main production DT?  The bindings haven't been reviewed
>>>>>> as far as I can tell, the matching driver is only in staging and hasn't
>>>>>> been posted upstream.
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't "staging" upstream enough for this?  :)
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have thought so, DTs are supposed to be an ABI so we want
>>>> proper review and having had a quick glance this doesn't look like it's
>>>> a hardware description so it's not clear to me it should be in DT at all.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> The driver and the binding before that don't really belong either,
>>> I would have NAK'd those on devicetree at vger.kernel.org, though it
>>> appears I either missed them or they never made it to that list.
>>>
>>>  From my PoV there should not be a platform-specific ION binding. If we
>>> need one at all, people should work on the proposed generic binding [1]
>>> or figure out how to do this with the existing reserved-memory bindings.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/6/854
>>
>> I posted v2 back in November
>> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.driver-project.devel/80475)
>> but there wasn't much in the way of review comments. More feedback there
>> would be appreciated or I can resend.
>
> I still have those in my queue, but was waiting for someone to chime in
> on them.  I guess if no one objected, that means I should accept them?
> :)

Before accepting them. I'd rather have some acknowledgement from the DT
maintainers that these bindings are moving in the right direction or
at least a better idea than the per platform bindings.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

Thanks,
Laura