Hi Laurent,
(this time reply to all)
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 Apr 2017 12:11:41 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > On Thursday 20 Apr 2017 11:49:06 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> Group the AVB pins into similar groups as found in other sh-pfc drivers.
>> >> The pins can not be muxed between functions other than AVB, but their
>> >> drive strengths can be controlled.
>> >>
>> >> The group avb_mdc containing ADV_MDC and ADV_MDIO is called avb_mdio on
>> >> other SoCs. In pfc-r8a7796 the avb_mdc group already existed and is in
>> >> use in DT. Therefore add the ADV_MDIO pin to the existing group instead
>> >> of renaming it.
>> >
>> > This clearly shows that we need a few kernel releases to test PFC-related
>> > code and DT before we can commit to an ABI. How do you think we should
>> > handle this ?
>>
>> That's a difficult question ;-)
>>
>> For now I'd like to treat R-Car M3-W the same as H3.
>
> I still believe we should introduce some kind of unstable period for DT
> bindings, during which they will be merged in mainline but still subject to
> modification. It could just be a few kernel releases.
Like, from v4.4 (when avb_mdc was added for H3) until v4.12 (earliest
we can correct this)?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
