From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/6] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:33:41 +0200 Message-ID: <7478716.z4vdp0mVTA@wuerfel> References: <1461801489-16254-1-git-send-email-sdharia@codeaurora.org> <2692115.H6acsZmTjn@wuerfel> <20160428115337.GN3217@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160428115337.GN3217@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Sagar Dharia , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, bp@suse.de, poeschel@lemonage.de, treding@nvidia.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, andreas.noever@gmail.com, alan@linux.intel.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, jkosina@suse.cz, sharon.dvir1@mail.huji.ac.il, joe@perches.com, davem@davemloft.net, james.hogan@imgtec.com, michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kheitke@audience.com, mlocke@codeaurora.org, agross@codeaurora.org, sheetal.tigadoli@gmail.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 April 2016 17:58:04 Sagar Dharia wrote: > > > > +int slim_add_device(struct slim_controller *ctrl, struct slim_device *sbdev) > > > This looks like an artifact of ancient pre-DT times. I'd say kill it off before > > someone starts using it. > > Not every architecture uses DT, and even on architectures with DT > support it isn't always the only firmware. In this specific case it's > questionable how many people are going to implement Slimbus at this > point but in general insisting that we go DT only doesn't seem great. > Nothing wrong with adding support for manual board files later if we have a good reason for it, but at the moment, this seems completely ARM/ARM64 specific. I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices. Arnd