[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bmvmvhqz.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:48:20 -0500
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"open list\:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] ARM: dts: armada-388-clearfog: Utilize new DSA binding
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
>> That makes me think that we should either remove, or use different
>> values for the version described in net/dsa/dsa.c:
>>
>> char dsa_driver_version[] = "0.1";
>>
>> Today this is absolutely useless and erroneous.
>
> I think it has been useless for over 9 years.
Do we want to get rid of it, or do we want to have a string version per
DSA implementation? (old vs. new bindings).
I don't like the actual way to distinguish between the two (grep'ing
dmesg as Florian shown). Maybe a pr_info in dsa2.c would be enough to
inform about DSA "v2". What do you guys prefer?
Thanks,
Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists