On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 07:55 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > If that data is one set per SoC, then i'm not that concerned having > platform-specific data in the driver. That doesn't mean the driver is > not "generic". It's still not clear to me in this thread, how much of > this is board specific, but given that you've placed all the data in > an SoC dtsi file it seems to be all per SoC. So Rob, I think that's precisely where the disconnect is. I think we all (well hopefully) agree that those few tunables don't fit in any existing subystem and aren't likely to ever do (famous last words...). Where we disagree is we want to make this parametrized via the DT, and you want us to hard wire the list in some kind of SoC driver for a given SoC family/version. The reason I think hard wiring the list in the driver is not a great solution is that that list in itself is prone to variations, possibly fairly often, between boards, vendors, versions of boards, etc... We can't know for sure every SoC tunable (out of the gazillions in those chips) are going to be needed for a given system. We know which ones we do use for ours, and that's a couple of handfuls, but it could be that Dell need a slightly different set, and so might Yadro, or so might our next board revision for that matter. Now, updating the device-tree in the board flash with whatever vendor specific information is needed is a LOT easier than getting the kernel driver constantly updated. The device-tree after all is there to reflect among other things system specific ways in which the SoC is wired and configured. This is rather close... Cheers, Ben. -- 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
