Hi, > I have a question for you and Wolfram, we don’t use device trees and > are not planning to use device trees; we only use ACPI tables. But I > think when Khalil submitted the first version of the i2c-mlxbf.c > driver, it was requested from him to add devicetree support. Do you > know why? Is it possible to remove the device tree support and so this > doc? or is devicetree support a requirement regardless of the actual > implementation? The first version sent from Khalil to the public I2C mailing list already had DT bindings [1]. I don't see a sign of someone of the public list requesting DT bindings. Maybe it was company internal? Technically, there is no requirement to support DT, especially since you have working ACPI. I don't know the process, though, of removing DT support. You would basically need to be sure that no user made use of the DT bindings introduced before. I don't know to what degree you can assume that. Maybe the DT list has more to add here? Happy hacking, Wolfram [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=73827&state=*
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
