[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226222750.GA30985@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:27:50 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"heiko@...ech.de" <heiko@...ech.de>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"jagan@...rulasolutions.com" <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr" <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"enric.balletbo@...labora.com" <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
"horms+renesas@...ge.net.au" <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 1/4] dt-bindings: fsl: scu: add watchdog binding
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:34:12PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Rob suggested that the SCU parent driver should instantiate the
> > > watchdog without explicit watchdog node. That would be possible, but it
> > > currently uses
> > > devm_of_platform_populate() to do the instantiation, and changing that
> > > would be a mess. Besides, it does sem to me that your suggested node would
> > > describe the hardware, so I am not sure I understand the reasoning.
>
> It would just be a call to create a platform device instead. How is that a mess?
>
> It's describing firmware. We have DT for describing h/w we've failed
> to make discoverable. We should not repeat that and just describe
> firmware in DT. Make the firmware discoverable! Though there are cases
> like firmware provided clocks where we still need something in DT, but
> this is not one of them.
>
It requires extra code where an added DT node would accomplish the same.
It requires a mix of DT nodes for existing devices plus extra code for
newly added devices. To me that looks like a revert to old platform code,
which was replaced with DT descriptions over the last several years.
But then if that is where things are going, who am I to argue.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists