Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:47:33 -0600
From:	"Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the
 TPS65912 PMIC

On 11/10/2015 03:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:41:20AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 03:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> There are cases where it's useful where we're abstracting something and
>>> gaining some meaningful reuse.  This really does not appear to be one of
>>> those cases, there are no parameters in the DT and the compatible string
>>> is the full device name.
>
>> As before I see no reason to make that call now and limit ourselves.
>
> To repeat *yet* *again* the point is that putting the current Linux
> driver model into the DT is limiting our future selves.
>
>>> You do not need to populate it.  There is no value in populating it and
>>> as previously discussed putting the Linux driver model into DT can be
>>> actively harmful if we change our idea of how we should model things.
>
>> The dev passed to regulator_register needs to have of_node populated for
>> your OF init_data helper to work. Devices with OF tables can just pass
>> their own dev. Others have to use their parents' nodes, this is a
>> workaround, OF devices should be probed with their of_node pre-populated.
>
> This is not a workaroud, the only reason you think it is a workaround is
> the desire to directly represent the Linux device model in the DT.
>
>>>>> Please stop this.  I don't understand why you are pushing so hard to put
>>>>> the Linux device model representation of the device into DT but it's
>>>>> getting very repetitive.
>
>>>> I'm not pushing anything, this is how other sub-nodes of MFD devices are
>
>>> Every time we go through this we finish the discussion and then you come
>>> back with yet another excuse for trying to push the current Linux device
>>> model into the DT or another version of the patch with the same problem.
>
>> I keep finding different problems, do you expect me to ignore them?
>
> You are making minor restatements of the same thing over and over again
> which ignore the main feedback.
>
>>> The fact that other people have merged imperfect code into the kernel is
>>> not a good reason to merge even more of it when we have better tools.
>>> Looking at that binding I'm seeing no reason why any of the subfunctions
>>> should have compatible strings (and if we're going down the route you're
>>> trying to go down we really ought to have something in the binding for
>>> at least an interrupt controller in there as well...).
>
>> These are not "subfunctions" they are full drivers, they only need
>> register accessors passed in, they do not call the core and the core
>> does not call them.
>
> To repeat *yet* *again* they are groupings of functionality which happen
> to represent the way Linux models devices right now.  There's no
> generality in there, it's just a dump of the current Linux model of the
> functions into the DT.
>

I've made different points every time, you are repeating yourself
because you only have one counter, you don't like what you perceive as
putting the "Linux device model representation of the device into DT".
I understand this, I simply don't agree that is what is going on, or
that this way will cause us any problems in the future.

>> If your problem is with the DT binding for this or other MFDs, then
>> nack *them* and explain to everyone why what they are doing is wrong
>> and why regulators should be special cases. Blocking the regulator
>> drivers to force a change in DT is not going to fix this issue.
>
> Of course this is a negative review of the binding!  What on earth did
> you think my feedback meant?  The driver and the binding go together.
>

The bindings should be driver/platform/OS agnostic, changing the bindings
because the Linux regulator subsystem maintainer doesn't like them
in regulator drivers is then not correct.

If the binding is accepted then the regulator driver will just have
to deal with it, so as I said, why not nack the bindings patch, and
explain your objection where DT maintainers might see it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists