Re: [RFC-ish PATCH 00/17] Clean up ASPEED devicetree warnings

["Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, at 15:21, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 01:09, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > The bang-for-buck is in fixing up the KCS bindings which removes all-but-two of
> > > > the remaining warnings (which we can't feasibly remove), but doing so forces
> > > > code changes (which I'd avoided up until this point).
> > > >
> > > > Reflecting broadly on the fixes, I think I've made a mistake way back by using
> > > > syscon/simple-mfds to expose the innards of the SCU and LPC controllers in the
> > > > devicetree. This series cleans up what's currently there, but I have half a
> > > > mind to rev the SCU and LPC bindings to not use simple-mfd and instead have a
> > > > driver implementation that uses `platform_device_register_full()` or similar to
> > > > deal with the mess.
> > > >
> > > > Rob - I'm looking for your thoughts here and on the series, I've never felt
> > > > entirely comfortable with what I cooked up. Your advice would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > The series generally looks fine to me from a quick scan. As far as
> > > dropping 'simple-mfd', having less fine grained description in DT is
> > > generally my preference. It comes down to whether what you have
> > > defined is maintainable. As most of it is just additions, I think what
> > > you have is fine. Maybe keep all this in mind for the next chip
> > > depending how the SCU and LPC change.
> >
> > Okay, I think the timing of that suggestion is good given where things are with
> > the AST2600. I'll keep that in mind.
> >
> > Consensus so far seems to be that the series is fine. I'll split it up and send out
> > the sub-series to the relevant lists with the acks accumulated here.
> 
> The series look good. I suggest posting the KCS bindings and driver
> changes as their own series to go through the IPMI tree.

Yeah, that was the plan.

> 
> Please add my tag to all the patches except the OCC one, which I need
> to do some investigation in to.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks, will do.

> 
> The others can go via the aspeed tree. Perhaps post them as their own
> series too so I don't get confused and apply the wrong ones. That way
> if Rob wants to send his reviewed-by he can.

SGTM.

Cheers,

Andrew