[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1445268580.53393.183.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:29:40 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > But the point I'm making is that we are working towards *fixing* that,
> > and *not* using DT-specific code in places where we should be using the
> > generic APIs.
>
> What is the plan for fixing things here? It's not obvious (at least to
> me) that we don't want to have the subsystems having knowledge of how
> they are bound to a specific firmware which is what you seem to imply
> here.
I don't know that there *is* a coherent plan here to address it all.
Certainly, we *will* need subsystems to have firmware-specific
knowledge in some cases. Take GPIO as an example; ACPI *has* a way to
describe GPIO, and properties which reference GPIO pins are intended to
work through that — while in DT, properties which reference GPIO pins
will have different contents. They'll be compatible at the driver
level, in the sense that there's a call to get a given GPIO given the
property name, but the subsystems *will* be doing different things
behind the scenes.
My plan, such as it is, is to go through the leaf-node drivers which
almost definitely *should* be firmware-agnostic, and convert those. And
then take stock of what we have left, and work out what, if anything,
still needs to be done.
> It seems like we're going to have to refactor these bits of code when
> they get generalised anyway so I'm not sure that the additional cost
> here is that big.
That's an acceptable answer — "we're adding legacy code here but we
know it's going to be refactored anyway". If that's true, all it takes
is a note in the commit comment to that effect. That's different from
having not thought about it :)
--
dwmw2
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5691 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists