On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2015-05-29 13:48:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now > > > > > > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that > > > > > > > > > > not Pali, Sebastian. > > > > > > > > > > > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all > > > > > > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted? > > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed. > > > > > > > > No. If the property is wrong, and nobody parsed it, I do not see any reason to > > > > start now. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > But that's not what I'm asking. See a changelog of > > > 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 and compare it with what it > > > actually does. > > > > > > It is buggy. If fuzz is specified but maximum is not, it overwites > > > maximum with zero. > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Plus it introduces new failure "if (!test_bit(axis, dev->absbit))". > > > > That is not a new failure. It actually warns users that they trying to > > specify in DT something that will be ignored by the kernel (because > > without that absbit kernel will ignore all requests to that event code). > > What if driver sets the bits after parsing device tree? It should not. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
