On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There are three boards that share that configuration almost to a T, > > with the only difference is the particular GPIOs used. Putting it into > > a common file avoids repeating the boilerplate and makes it explicit > > to the reader that those settings are shared. > > I'd agree if that boilerplate was 100 lines. > OK, so your threshold is 100 lines, mine is 3. Agree to disagree? > But here it is small, and mostly containing lines that are required for > any i2c-gpio definition. It does not any value of itself. > > Saving 5 lines at cost of loose of integrity is not something I agree with. > Can we maybe tone it down and not make this sound like a struggle of "good vs. evil"? > > There are at least two boards that use that UART2 as is. Same as above > > this was done to reduce boilerplate. > > Here have choice between two logical blocks - definitions of uart2 in > two boards that use them, and two logical blocks - definition in dtsi > and undo in board that does not use it. > > You trade a couple of saved dts lines against keeping things consistent. That's your POV, mine is that I save a couple of lines and things are still consistent. > > Nikita > > P.S. > In case of these zii boards I doubt that dtsi worths at all. Despite of > all being imx51 boards from ZII, these boards don't seem to have large > common logical blocks. Perhaos RDU1 and babbage have more in common - so > what, create a dtsi for them? Nope, that slippery slope doesn't exist at all. We have a clear boundary/decision criteria of common vendor. As I said, let's leave this decision up to the maintainers and avoid continuing having this argument where neither party convinces another. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov -- 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
