Hello Nicolas, On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:46:13 +0200, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 06:09, boris brezillon : >> Hello Arnd, >> >> On 07/08/2013 22:24, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Thursday 01 August 2013, Boris BREZILLON wrote: >>>> This patch moves peripheral id definitions from machine specific include >>>> dir (arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/'soc-name'.h) to dt-bindinds include >>>> dir (include/dt-bindings/at91/'soc-name'/peripherals.h). >>>> >>>> These definitions will be used inside dt to define interrupt ids and >>>> peripheral clk ids. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> This seems counterproductive, why would you do that? >> >> This was requested by Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard (and proposed by >> Richard Genoud) >> for the 3rd version of the "ARM: at91: move to common clk framework" >> patch series (see >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/29/361) and thought it was a good idea too >> (even if I didn't know >> where to put the macro files as there are no soc specific macro files in >> dt-bindings include >> dir). >> >> Indeed I found it much easier to detect bugs in dt definition using >> macros because >> the macro names and dt node names are the same (it does not protect >> against errors >> in the macro definitions). >> >> If you think these macro definitions should be dropped, I won't argue >> against this. >> But please, have a talk with Jean-Christophe first. > > [..] > >>> There is no sharing of identifiers across SoCs here, you just move the >>> data around, and changing the .dts files to use the abstract macros would >>> just end up making them harder to understand, not easier, since you then >>> have to look up the numbers in another file. > > Boris, Jean-Christophe and Richard, > > Well, I must say that I do agree with Arnd on this point. > > I think that a simple numeric field in a cell has to be represented > as a number and even if this simple information is used twice > (interrupt number and clock bit position in PMC). The possibility of > error is very low compared to the big amount of unneeded definitions > added by this solution. > > Moreover, I had the hope to completely remove this long list of > peripheral definitions for all SoC when we have a full DT kernel (with > your patches about common clock framework). So I think it is not > interesting to move in this direction and continue to build such a > list for future full DT products... > > Believe me, I am sorry that I didn't entered the discussion earlier > and avoid unnecessary work... Anyway, give me your opinion, but I do > think that the simpler is the best. > As discussed with you (on IRC), I am not absolutely convinced we need these macro definitions, and given the direction you want to take (completely remove the peripheral id definitions), i would say we'd rather drop this patch. It won't bother me at all to rework the "sama5 dt clk" patch series (this is the only SoC I supported in the 3rd version of the at91 common clk transition) to remove references to these macros. Best Regards, Boris > Bye, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
