On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:31:37AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Right, so what you're proposing is to come up with a DT description for > the existing stuff, and then have to change (or at the very least augment) > that description later when the DPCM stuff goes in. > What should be done is to sort out DPCM, get that working and then sort out > the DT side of it, so that everyone gets only one transition to DT, not a > transition to a half-baked stop-gap DT and then have to go through another > round of DT changes. "Because we can" is not a good enough reason not to > get this sorted properly. Since we know what the hardware physically looks like we should be able to write a DT binding which can be stable for both before and after the DPCM transition. The bindings would have to be truly awful to require a rewrite here and as with all the DMA wrapper drivers if parts of DPCM that don't reflect actual hardware are appearing in the DT we're doing something wrong.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
