On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 April 2016 17:58:04 Sagar Dharia wrote: > > > > +int slim_add_device(struct slim_controller *ctrl, struct slim_device *sbdev) > > > This looks like an artifact of ancient pre-DT times. I'd say kill it off before > > someone starts using it. > > Not every architecture uses DT, and even on architectures with DT > support it isn't always the only firmware. In this specific case it's > questionable how many people are going to implement Slimbus at this > point but in general insisting that we go DT only doesn't seem great. > Nothing wrong with adding support for manual board files later if we have a good reason for it, but at the moment, this seems completely ARM/ARM64 specific. I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
