On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > 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. No, we don't. > > > > The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted. Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding things were a bad idea can always be debated again. > It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it. Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them. Rob -- 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
