On 12/11/2014 02:43 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:58:37PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> I'd expect someone reading the change in the regulator API to have at >> least some idea how this fits in with the rest of the API and how to use >> it, and probably more importantly I'd expect to be able to understand >> why this is DT only. > > Yep. > > This is a repetitive problem, and I fully agree with your concern about > stuff which is supposed to be arch-independent being designed with only > DT in mind. > > New core kernel features should *not* be designed with only DT in mind - > DT is not the only firmware description language which the kernel > supports. Folk need to understand that if they design a new arch > independent kernel feature where the sole use case is with DT, that new > feature is probably going to get rejected, especially when it's > something as generic as resource tracking. > > The world is not DT only. > OK. I will post next version of patchset with resource/provider lookup left to frameworks (regulators, clock, etc), this way it will be fully firmware agnostic. I will add also better description of the framework. Regards Andrzej -- 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
