From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2101A031C for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:59:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:59:24 -0600 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EDD38C8026 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t3S6xMBi53805076 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 06:59:22 GMT Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t3S6xKW5011746 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:59:20 -0400 From: Stewart Smith To: Jacek Anaszewski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] leds/powernv: Add driver for PowerNV platform In-Reply-To: <20150424121629.69a159b3@ja.home> References: <20150422234509.626d9dc7@ja.home> <55388254.4000606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150423161342.55e9ac8f@ja.home> <20150424121629.69a159b3@ja.home> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:59:18 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, cooloney@gmail.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Jacek Anaszewski writes: > Is the DT node we are discussing used by some other drivers than the > LED class driver? Or is it required in this form by other components of > your platform? OS kernels are the chief consumers, Linux being the overwhelmingly major one here. But this is what firmware currently produces. Changing the DT representation at this stage is perhaps *possible* without creating a bunch of pain (I'd have to audit a bunch of things to see if we have GA shipping systems with this functionality for instance, and then evaluate the impact to partners and our various labs) which is a lot of work I don't particularly want to do and is well below urgent item 248 on my TODO list, especially for what seems to be largely a cosmetic suggestion? That being said, more and better review of things we're putting in the device tree in firmware is probably a good thing. After all, once we release we do kind of have to live with it essentially forever. If people are able to aid in that kind of code review, I'd be most welcome to hear it.