On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:44:04 +0100 >> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> [snip] >> > > It seems we are going backwards: as the Armada based boards will soon >> > > move to full DT (mvebu), you are making an exception for the Cubox, so >> > > that there should be Cubox specific kernels. I don't like that... >> > >> > *Ignored*. You know why. >> >> Sorry. I don't see why. May you explain again? > > I don't run DT because DT lacks most of the features I require on the > cubox. Therefore I can't develop for DT. Simple. Jean-François, just as an aside, I really don't think code that can be shared, like tda998x, should encode a DT requirement.. there are plenty of platforms that don't use DT (arm isn't everything, and last I heard aarch64 was going to be ACPI). Beyond that, it is a driver decision whether or not to support only-DT or DT + other.. and as long as there is a common board which can use the driver but which is not DT, there is probably a compelling reason to still support the non-DT case. BR, -R _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
