From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number. Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:06:46 -0700 Message-ID: <5745E9B6.5090204@gmail.com> References: <1464107960-10775-1-git-send-email-christer@weinigel.se> <20160524172045.GN8206@sirena.org.uk> <57449784.4070108@weinigel.se> <20160524183256.GP8206@sirena.org.uk> <5744E51A.1040506@gmail.com> <20160525174932.GA10753@rob-hp-laptop> Reply-To: frowand.list@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160525174932.GA10753@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Mark Brown , Christer Weinigel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote: >>>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't >>>>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI >>>>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux >>>>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going >>>>> to document it. It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a >>>>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs, >>>>> what's the goal here? >>> >>>> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree >>>> because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific >>>> interpretations such as this be documented? >>> >>> I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear >>> that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask for one but >>> you've not articulated one in this reply. I am much less gung ho than >>> Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very >>> legacy. > > No, we don't. > >>> >> >> The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted. > > Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding > things were a bad idea can always be debated again. > >> It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it. > > Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them. If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated so people do not attempt to use it. > > Rob >