From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/3] spidev: Add DT binding example. Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:30:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20150427173036.GA10950@lukather> References: <20150426103257.GJ22845@sirena.org.uk> <20150426110144.GK22845@sirena.org.uk> <553CCABA.3090504@redhat.com> <12F80B18-7418-430E-94F7-5A20C133BA9A@martin.sperl.org> <20150426125113.GF5627@lukather> <20150427101601.GN22845@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm" Cc: Michal Suchanek , Martin Sperl , Hans de Goede , linux-sunxi , Jonathan Corbet , linux-spi , linux-doc , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Mark Brown Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150427101601.GN22845-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >=20 > > > >> I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did t= he > > > >> work to make it happen. I don't think I have a massive objection = in > > > >> principal. >=20 > > Actually, I did it a year ago, and it looked at the time that it > > wasn't what should be done either. >=20 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/612 >=20 > lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or > at least got fed up trying to get it to load) A part of it is also here: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1405.0/00484.html > but I think the discussion there petered out more than anything > else. Maybe it did :) > Or was it the suggestion to make this something that the driver core > supported so that we didn't have to open code it for every bus? Probably. That's something I really haven't took the time to look at, and don't really plan on doing so. I guess a good way forward would be to revive this patch, and wait for that generic way to happen. What do you think of this? Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVPnI8AAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgMLEP/AuII2K8XmVq6wytiqgoytbR tbpvFYai2AP96jNTCsyg605eKRMtIVOMnqCtdToQBSWn1licBR5QdPnARKxScnUN AiZQGb7zsnvLybc1gSWw83Z3Iw1FKreDyqoTYDuZJ7fCM9fu0V9TfxkjouVa078u h1FC2ZLOmmOFR8rIanHzHrA4kaI0Xa9QV0h0pMUeJwZlZxfYWFqiBl5i7OnKdfJH 05iT8tGuA8BO8Y43rwlKpzGAFOstVa97I7L9eiJRQTDJgGDtaUMLMNNxXDxWGIVY jrZxDA/+lnYXydlFPMYr/CabHV3Ixp7b23KlV8dZcWz+YeZuvmK7AvAo+HJ7Vt3M MNlAh0gzNeF/GqGMegPONqW8YXxBJ0UM+oRrZrecTLjdlMVXyNzDEVqTXGsWgBYm QaUcBFBwIv62XGpUDPkrh4Xq3K+RThOPte7ZgP3ShlDRoxFHMvvSwwwkUxUEWtL8 9P+IfwZZJaqicv3sSHv4aQYyYkPXxtaw+nPw8oZ78FchLi/KL0hGcjGB5x7akDA+ vZHPuUQY2fd4rFnKZl+2IVGwBF8orIWmBHDRRL+QoJubMVqPJLzIF3GhE5k0cVj3 96PMyIU5xoOI5cmxck/E8uBbnF8+fFL6WSQH0XuxGLUe8AobJJ+nBA/qFHv214M0 TxmVQYtpkORR64L+HjEj =iafU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html