From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932646AbcILRrg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:47:36 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:57808 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755557AbcILRGW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:06:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:06:05 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@tabi.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ARM, SoC: About the use DT-defined properties by 3rd-party
 drivers
Message-ID: <20160912170604.GG14165@leverpostej>
References: <57BDAF2E.10502@laposte.net>
 <CAOZdJXVjsR3NTWiJX33yT3jYk=FU65raWoMooTLD7OMN3sqP-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <57D69FB1.2020801@laposte.net>
 <20160912123809.GB13741@leverpostej>
 <57D6AA54.6000208@laposte.net>
 <20160912135549.GA14165@leverpostej>
 <CANCZdfri+T59FA4XTaH5JbW0BaJHt3w5eaSkpD8NrJn6nZrZbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57D6D7D2.7030507@laposte.net>
 <CANCZdfqZEMRaFqgph6kZPdyxBcURBiEV0XoH0vPG28Hhm5+77A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqZEMRaFqgph6kZPdyxBcURBiEV0XoH0vPG28Hhm5+77A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:45:37AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> Do I have more examples where FreeBSD has to deviate because the DT is
> actually Linux specific and does a poor job of modeling the hardware
> and instead reflects the Linux driver model? I have plenty of those...

I guess you don't actually have those written down, but on the
off-chance, would you be able to share any major pain points?

We do try (admittedly far from perfectly) to avoid implementation
details in bindings, but driver mdoel details are fairly difficult to
pin down either way. It would be nice to be more aware.

Thanks,
Mark.