On 09/03/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-08-30 14:37:46) >> On 08/30/2013 02:33 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: ... >>> The clock _data_ seems to always have some churn to it. Moving it out to >>> DT reduces that churn from Linux. My concern above is not about kernel >>> data size. >> >> That sounds like the opposite of what we should be doing. >> >> It's fine for kernel code/data to change; that's a natural part of >> development. Obviously, we should minimize churn, through thorough >> review, domain knowledge, etc. > > And with the "clock mapping" style bindings we'll end up changing both > the DT binding definition and the kernel. Not great. What's a "clock mapping" style binding? I guess that means the style where you have a single DT node that provides multiple clocks, rather than one DT node per clock? If the kernel driver changes its internal data, I don't see why that would have any impact at all on the DT binding definition. We should be able to use one DT binding definition with arbitrary drivers. > And I'll respond to your points below but the whole "relocate the > problem to DT" argument is simply not my main point. What I want to do > is increase the usefulness of DT by allowing register-level details into > the binding which can Can you expand upon why a DT that encodes register-level details is more useful? I can't see why there would be any difference in usefulness. -- 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
