On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Montag, 27. Oktober 2014, 11:41:53 schrieb Felipe Balbi: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:35:49PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > Am Montag, den 27.10.2014, 16:26 +0000 schrieb Romain Perier: > > > > No longer use custom property to define poweroff capability, use the > > > > standard DT property instead. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/tps65910.c | 3 +-- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c > > > > index 7612d89..a7faff2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65910.c > > > > @@ -423,8 +423,7 @@ static struct tps65910_board > > > > *tps65910_parse_dt(struct i2c_client *client,> > > > > > board_info->irq = client->irq; > > > > board_info->irq_base = -1; > > > > > > > > - board_info->pm_off = of_property_read_bool(np, > > > > - "ti,system-power-controller"); > > > > + board_info->pm_off = of_is_system_power_controller(); > > > > > > > > return board_info; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > You are breaking compatibility with older DTs here. This is not > > > acceptable. > > > > > > You may change all in-tree DTs to use the new property and also patch > > > the driver to understand it, but you must make sure that the driver > > > still understands the old, custom property. And especially in this case > > > it isn't really hard to do. > > > > correct, it should be simple to hide that under > > of_is_system_power_controller() itself. > > If I'm reading patch 1 correctly, it already does handle the generic "system- > power-controller", as well as any foo,system-power-controller properties. that's very true, but it doesn't handle poweroff-source which, one way or another, will be merged into Linus' tree creating a bisection point where things won't work. The best solution would be for those patches to be removed from whichever tree they are, otherwise there will always be a commit in the mainline kernel with that binding and, even if unlikely, there will always be the possibility of people using that commit or a developer having to bisect an issue only to find a few commits where things don't even build. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
