On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:16:54PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote: > > On 23.04.2015, at 20:13, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As *repeatedly* mentioned before please stop taking things off-list. I > > really shouldn't need to remind you of this quite so often, I'm very > > tempted to start ignoring such messages. > This was NOT my intention and I am really sorry for that. Please also use the normal list, you're using the sourceforge list which hasn't been in use for quite some time now. > >> I agree, that we need a long-term solution, but the way it is right now > >> in for-next/for-linux people think something is broken and will call it > >> a regression or maybe an API change (because of a change in behaviour on > >> the device-tree). > > The entire point of this change is to make it look like things are > > broken because they are, in fact, broken. We continue to support these > > systems, we just complain loudly about them. > Essentially you say: let us produce an error-message for some > situation where there is NO way around making it work without > an error message. Sure there is, add a device ID to spidev and use that in the DT as Geert said. > Also note that the "beagle-bone people” still provide device-trees that > explicitly set up compatiblity=“spidev” - I just did a quick check: > /boot/dtbs/3.19.3-bone4/omap3-ha-lcd.dtb contains spidev. I suspect that's just some random DT they inherited from mainline rather than something production, and honestly the fact that people keep on doing this is exactly the reason we now complain loudly. It's tedious having to go through the "no, your DT should describe the hardware" routine again and again.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
