From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751829AbcEZFsu (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 01:48:50 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:41791 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750744AbcEZFss (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 01:48:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm: dra7: Add i2c6 instance hwmod and dt entries To: Nishanth Menon , Ravikumar Kattekola , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20160525125341.10044-1-rk@ti.com> <5745CE4E.3020903@ti.com> CC: Felipe Balbi From: Tero Kristo Message-ID: <57468E0D.2060504@ti.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:47:57 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5745CE4E.3020903@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25/05/16 19:09, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 05/25/2016 07:53 AM, Ravikumar Kattekola wrote: >> DRA72x devices have a sixth i2c ocntroller instance. >> Following patches add the required hwmod structure and >> device tree nodes. >> >> Reference doc: DRA72x TRM [ SPRUHP2Q ] >> >> Tested on : >> DRA72x Rev B EVM >> >> Ravikumar Kattekola (2): >> arm: dra7: Add hwmod entry for i2c6 >> dts: dra7: Add device tree node for i2c6 >> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+) >> > NAK. reasoning: > a) i2c6 is a custom IP integration with completely non-standard > dependencies with cross device dependencies for pretty much a specific > usecase -> usage is pretty much limited for generic support - the > decision is NOT to support this instance in Linux kernel - internal > discussion forwarded to developer. > b) the patches themselves are wrong -> it applies to DRA72x not > generic DRA7x platform > c) patches themselves are in the wrong format (wrong subject line etc). > d) patches don't handle the SoC internal device dependencies either -> > in short will not function in a generic solution for all variations of > platforms. > Yes please drop this, attempting to support it in upstream is just going to cause unnecessary pain. -Tero