On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:21:35AM +0000, Pekon Gupta wrote: > >From: Ezequiel Garcia > >I'm not implying we should deprecate the recently added "ti-nand-ecc-opt", > >but just want to know it's eventually possible. > > > Yes, this is good approach for long-term, and it can replace "ti-nand-ecc-opt" > "ti-nand-ecc-opt" is not new DT binding, it just got some new values added > However, you have to convince DT Maintainers to get this in, and then deprecate > other vendor specific bindings. It would be difficult to maintain backward > compatibility to these bindings, if we move to 'nand-ecc-strength'. I don't see why it would be difficult to support both the more generic nand-ecc-strength and the OMAP-specific ti-nand-ecc-opt in the same driver. OMAP NAND would just have to define a helper that translates properties like "bch8" into a strength and sector size (8 and 512, respectively). From then on, you can treat them identically. > At some-point we need to get some concrete guidelines from DT Maintainers on > how long we should support deprecated bindings in our code, And what is the > age of DT binding. I think David Woodhouse should throw more light, as he had > some discussions & ideas on about DT binding life, during a linux conference. Barring some new direction from the DT folks, I believe DT is an eternal ABI. We can and should maintain compatibility forever. And in this case, I don't think it's that hard. Brian -- 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
