From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: tegra: add serial driver Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:09:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20121220010902.2116B3E0AD7@localhost> References: <1355746249-15347-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20121217171027.6AE573E0BDD@localhost> <50CF8F36.2030309@wwwdotorg.org> <20121219130151.F29CA3E0AD7@localhost> <50D1CC07.6070506@nvidia.com> <50D1F22A.6090801@wwwdotorg.org> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50D1F22A.6090801@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren , Laxman Dewangan Cc: "alan@linux.intel.com" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "jslaby@suse.cz" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:58:18 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 12/19/2012 07:15 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 December 2012 06:31 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:31:34 -0700, Stephen > >> Warren wrote: > >>> On 12/17/2012 10:10 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:40:49 +0530, Laxman > >>>> Dewangan wrote: > >>> > >>> Aren't we still supposed to support platform data so that it can > >>> override what's in DT in order to fix up bad DTs? Or, has that > >>> requirement been dropped. If it has, we can drop a bunch of code from a > >>> variety of Tegra-specific drivers, I expect. > >> Do you have an actual user for this? If not, then don't borrow trouble. > >> Just drop it. Things like platform_data can always be added later only > >> if it is needed. > > > > Currently all our board supports DT. we are not using any driver > > instantiated by board files. > > I will remove the platform data for current patch and if it is require > > then will add later with reasoning. > > > > Hope this will be fine with Stephen also so that this basic patch can > > be included into tree soon. > > I'm fine with it; it's just a change in policy that hadn't been > communicated before. Not really. For as long as I can remember there has been a strong bias against unused code in the kernel. That goes for platform_data support code as much as anything else. What has been policy is that adding DT support must never break existing non-DT support as long as non-DT booting is supported by a platform. g.