On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > This looks like an artifact of ancient pre-DT times. I'd say kill it off before > > > someone starts using it. > > Not every architecture uses DT, and even on architectures with DT > > support it isn't always the only firmware. In this specific case it's > > questionable how many people are going to implement Slimbus at this > > point but in general insisting that we go DT only doesn't seem great. > Nothing wrong with adding support for manual board files later if > we have a good reason for it, but at the moment, this seems completely > ARM/ARM64 specific. It's not in theory, but in practice nobody other that Qualcomm is ever likely to release a controller. > I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even > if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board > specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever > firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices. Right, in this particular case I don't think it makes a huge difference but what you were talking about was "ancient pre-DT times" rather than something specific to this particular case. That's definitely a thing that people keep thinking and it's good to push back on it since we do have non-DT cases to worry about (some architectures, other firmwares, things like PCI cards with other components on them and so on).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
