On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 13:17 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:35:34 PM CET Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:07 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 09:39 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:53:21PM +1100, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > > > > > Lee's next email in the chain poked Arnd for an opinion, but Arnd > > > > didn't reply. > > > > > > > > I don't mind. I moved these bindings separately so we could just drop > > > > the patch if there was push-back. If we drop the whole idea I'll need > > > > to apply a small fix to patch 5/6 to avoid creating the syscon > > > > subdirectory. > > > > > > The sub-directory is a good idea for drivers who are *solely* syscon > > > based. > > > > > > > Yes, I wasn't saying otherwise, just commenting on my motivation and > > approach. > > > > As far as I can tell all of the bindings I move here describe solely > > syscon-based devices. > > > > But do we know which ones they are? > > In principle, any syscon device node can have a specialized driver > exporting an interface, the bindings always allow it to be done > one way or the other, and we may change the driver or run a different > OS that has decided differently. > Right; for the Linux case there are currently no driver implementations that match on the compatible strings in the documents I moved (save for qcom,tcsr, except that it's the qcom,gsbi compatible driver parsing a phandle to the qcom,tcsr syscon node). However, I can't guarantee the solely-syscon property for other operating systems. Given that, it now looks to me like we shouldn't have such a directory at all. Cheers, Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
