On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote: >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't >>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI >>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux >>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going >>> to document it. It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a >>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs, >>> what's the goal here? > >> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree >> because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific >> interpretations such as this be documented? > > I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear > that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask for one but > you've not articulated one in this reply. I am much less gung ho than > Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very > legacy. > The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted. It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it. -Frank -- 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
