On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:59:48AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:35:15 AM Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > On 08/31/2016 07:40 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 03:45:24 PM Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > >> The idea is to get rid of skeleton.dtsi [0], but that will of course take > > >> time until the dtsi is removed from all the files. So this patch is a step > > >> in the right direction so at least Exynos is not a blocker to remove it. > > > > > > Krzysztof's point is valid. If you are going to convert all DTS/DTSI > > > then it is okay to apply Exynos specific changes, otherwise the code > > > should stay as it is currently. > > > > > > Exynos won't be a blocker since we have your patches now and they can > > > be applied when/if needed ;).. > > > > Sorry but I disagree. I see no reasons to need this to be an atomic, rather > > than incremental change. Deprecated things are usually handled by removing > > the usage and once there are no users, finally removing them. > > Yes, given that there is agreement on the direction and people are aware > of the needed changes. This doesn't seem to be a case yet as there is > no comment in skeleton.dtsi about being deprecated and other platforms' > Maintainers are not aware of the need for the change. On the DT side we're all agreed that skeleton.dtsi should die. I'll send a patch adding a note to skeleton.dtsi to make this more obvious, but that shouldn't be a blocker for removing existing uses. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
