From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] [powerpc] Fix up fsl-flexcan device tree binding. Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:11:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4E41946D.4030003@freescale.com> References: <1312901031-29887-1-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <1312901031-29887-6-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <4E4179CB.6030101@freescale.com> <4E418B39.6040408@grandegger.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E418B39.6040408@grandegger.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , U Bhaskar-B22300 , socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de, Robin Holt , PPC list List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 08/09/2011 02:32 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > On 08/09/2011 08:17 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 08/09/2011 09:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote: >>> In working with the socketcan developers, we have come to the conclusion >>> the fsl-flexcan device tree bindings need to be cleaned up. >>> The driver does not depend upon any properties other than the required properties >>> so we are removing the file. >> >> That is not the criterion for whether something should be expresed in >> the device tree. It's a description of the hardware, not a Linux driver >> configuration file. If there are integration parameters that can not be >> inferred from "this is FSL flexcan v1.0", they should be expressed in >> the node. >> >> Removing the binding altogether seems extreme as well -- we should have >> bindings for all devices, even if there are no special properties. > > Yes, of course. The commit message misleading. We do not intend to > remove the binding but just a few unused and confusing properties. Is it a matter of the current driver not caring, or the properties just not making sense for any reasonable driver (ambiguous, inferrable from the flexcan version, software configuration, etc)? -Scott