On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 05:27:53PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Russell, > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:43:44PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 01:11:49PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > FWIW the PL180 on my Juno still works fine with this patch picked on top of > > > -rc3, so the issue would seem to be something else - From a quick comparison > > > between the DTs I see a slight difference in compatible strings for the > > > clocks, but the more likely-looking suspect is that the VExpress DT > > > references some GPIOs where the Juno DT doesn't. > > > > Maybe it would be a good idea that Uwe creates a patch which initially > > warns when a DT platform device falls back to matching via the platform > > strings? > > > > It's likely that the "basic subsystem" platform drivers are silent when > > they probe, so having notification of a fallback would at least put > > something into the kernel log when that happens - and then later change > > that to be a hard failure (as Uwe is trying to do with his patch.) > > > > However, I have to bring up another point: is what Uwe is trying to do > > actually the right thing? The DT platform device code has the ability > > to create standard platform devices from DT, with an of_node, but with > > standard names, and platform data. It's there for compatibility with > > older systems, and is there to allow systems to be transitioned over. > > > > This patch breaks all that: despite the DT code changing the platform > > device bus_id from the address.nodename format to the standard format > > (thus allowing unconverted platform drivers to match), this patch > > means that because the platform device has a of_node attached, this > > will now fail. > > > > Therefore, I think Uwe's patch is just wrong - or, if it's something we > > want, the auxdata table support code needs to _also_ be ripped out of > > the drivers/of/platform.c code, but that then means anyone who wants to > > go through the conversion has a big flag-day change to go through. > > That's a valid concern I wasn't aware of when I created the patch. > > So maybe just emitting a warning as you suggested is a good idea. And > additionally only emit it when the driver is dt aware, too. > > Greg, can you drop this patch, or do you need a proper changelog for a > revert? On top of that I'd then create a new patch which is more > conservative. A hint as to what the git commit id was would be helpful, I can just revert it based on that. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
