[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E41946D.4030003@freescale.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:11:25 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
U Bhaskar-B22300 <B22300@...escale.com>,
<socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
PPC list <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] [powerpc] Fix up fsl-flexcan device tree binding.
On 08/09/2011 02:32 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 08/09/2011 08:17 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 08/09/2011 09:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote:
>>> In working with the socketcan developers, we have come to the conclusion
>>> the fsl-flexcan device tree bindings need to be cleaned up.
>>> The driver does not depend upon any properties other than the required properties
>>> so we are removing the file.
>>
>> That is not the criterion for whether something should be expresed in
>> the device tree. It's a description of the hardware, not a Linux driver
>> configuration file. If there are integration parameters that can not be
>> inferred from "this is FSL flexcan v1.0", they should be expressed in
>> the node.
>>
>> Removing the binding altogether seems extreme as well -- we should have
>> bindings for all devices, even if there are no special properties.
>
> Yes, of course. The commit message misleading. We do not intend to
> remove the binding but just a few unused and confusing properties.
Is it a matter of the current driver not caring, or the properties just
not making sense for any reasonable driver (ambiguous, inferrable from
the flexcan version, software configuration, etc)?
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists