On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44:53AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:25:28PM +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 07:39:17PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:13:31AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Yes it is, you all are the ones tasked with implementing the crazy crap > > > > the hardware people have created, best of luck with that :) > > > > > > Agreed. The first assumption should be that we can fit in with the > > > existing device model -- we should only reconsider if we find that > > > to be impossible. > > > > Let me know if you think it is somehow impossible, but you all should > > really push back on the insane hardware designers that are forcing you > > all to do this work. I find it "interesting" how this all becomes your > > workload for their crazy ideas. > > Oh, I don't think we're claiming anything is impossible here :) It's more > that we will probably want to make some changes to the device model to allow, > for example, a device to be associated with multiple buses of potentially > different types. Why would you want that? What good would that help with? > Step one is to get the DT binding sorted, then we can try and get Linux to > make use of it. This goes hand-in-hand with the IOMMU discussion going on > here: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-November/210401.html > > which is one of the issues that is hitting us right now. Interesting how people seem to not know how to cc: the needed maintainers when they touch core code :( -- 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
