On Thursday 28 April 2016 15:38:01 Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote: > > 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). Ok, I see what you mean. It turns out I made the exact same comment on the first review five years ago (phrased more nicely back then): http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/3192/focus=3193 My comment this time was for the particular driver, but I'd still also maintain that a new subsystem in general should not start out by addressing the needs of traditional board files. I don't think we have merge new platform support on any architecture that would need this in the past years and stuff like spi_board_info and i2c_board_info is only really used on really old machines (but not going away any time soon either). Arnd -- 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
