On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:30:05AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 20 March 2015 at 20:12, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, and that is an eventual goal I suppose, but the current list is > > excessive and is most likely not currently relied on by any one. So I > > don't just want to C&P the entire list into this binding immediately. > > > > I guess my plan looks like this: > > > > 1. add "nor-jedec" binding, to provide lowest common denominator binding > > (this series) > > > > 2. stop adding to the m25p_ids[] table unless necessary (enabled by this > > series) > > > > 3. gauge whether we can remove certain entries from m25p_ids[] (e.g., if > > they were only used in platform_data, not DT; or if they were very > > recently added just to synchronize with spi-nor.c) > > Why we can't remove (slowly) all entries from m25p_ids that don't need > any extra handling? > > If we'll have DT with > "spansion,m25p80", "nor-jedec" > and then m25p80.c will handle both: "m25p80" and "nor-jedec" without > any difference, what's the point of keeping "m25p80" entry? ABI stability. A lot of DTBs might be using m25p80 already, and they aren't supposed to have to update just because SW decided to drop them. But see [1] for the official word on ABI stability. I think that leaves room for removing most/all of these eventually. Brian [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ABI.txt -- 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
