On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:58:18 -0700, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/19/2012 07:15 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 December 2012 06:31 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:31:34 -0700, Stephen > >> Warren<swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 12/17/2012 10:10 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:40:49 +0530, Laxman > >>>> Dewangan<ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Aren't we still supposed to support platform data so that it can > >>> override what's in DT in order to fix up bad DTs? Or, has that > >>> requirement been dropped. If it has, we can drop a bunch of code from a > >>> variety of Tegra-specific drivers, I expect. > >> Do you have an actual user for this? If not, then don't borrow trouble. > >> Just drop it. Things like platform_data can always be added later only > >> if it is needed. > > > > Currently all our board supports DT. we are not using any driver > > instantiated by board files. > > I will remove the platform data for current patch and if it is require > > then will add later with reasoning. > > > > Hope this will be fine with Stephen also so that this basic patch can > > be included into tree soon. > > I'm fine with it; it's just a change in policy that hadn't been > communicated before. Not really. For as long as I can remember there has been a strong bias against unused code in the kernel. That goes for platform_data support code as much as anything else. What has been policy is that adding DT support must never break existing non-DT support as long as non-DT booting is supported by a platform. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
