Re: OMAP34xx

Cousson, Benoit
2012-02-07T00:55:17Z

Hi Russell,

On 2/7/2012 1:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:19:50AM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
>> In theory that patch should not be even needed.
>
> In theory that change is needed to fix the obviously broken code which
> is there at the moment.

Well, both patches were supposed to be merged during the last merge
window, so this code is not broken but was just assuming that the proper
default configs were there. It is an integration issue between two
feature trees.

> So, irrespective of whether OF gets permanently enabled or not, that ifdef
> needs to go.

The whole point of adding USE_OF in default omap2plus_config was to
avoid all the #ifdef that supporting both OF and non-OF build will generate.

> But, forcing OF on at this point probably isn't a good idea (who knows
> what else is lurking there) and there's a fairly simple and tested fix
> for this as I've shown in my OMAP patch.

The issues we are facing right now are already due to the usage of
config that are not the default ones (omap2plus_defconfig), so adding
even more options will just lead to even more potential build breaks in
the future.
I think we need to reduce the amount of options we can support in order
to avoid the current issues and not adding some more.

Since it was already agreed by the whole arm-soc community that DT is
the only way to go, I guess that the sooner we enable that the better it is.

> That, I feel, is likely to have less side effects than force enabling
> USE_OF.

If we never enable USE_OF by default, we will never know...
So far I did not observe any regression by enabling USE_OF with a legacy
board boot.

Regards,
Benoit