From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: add spi driver Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: <51250F22.8050401@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1361281115-20436-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <5123C18A.9010604@wwwdotorg.org> <5124C18F.6070108@nvidia.com> <20130220131112.GE2726@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5124CEF5.3060605@nvidia.com> <512506F9.2030508@wwwdotorg.org> <20130220173109.GU2726@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <512509A9.6020208@wwwdotorg.org> <20130220175721.GW2726@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Laxman Dewangan , "grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org" , "rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "spi-devel-general-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Stephen Warren To: Mark Brown Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130220175721.GW2726-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On 02/20/2013 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Since we can extend the list of clocks it doesn't seem like >>> there's much issue here, especially if some of them are >>> optional? > >> Yes, there's certainly a way to extend the binding in a >> backwards-compatible way. > >> However, I have seen in Rob and/or Grant push back on not fully >> defining bindings in the past - i.e. actively planning to >> initially create a minimal binding and extend it in the future, >> rather than completely defining it up-front. > > That sounds like the current stuff with a minimal definition is > OK? I'm personally OK with defining a minimal binding first and extending it later. But, I'm worried if when we actually try to extend the binding later, we'll get push-back.