On 06/06/2014 01:35 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:54:00AM +0200, Stephen Warren wrote: ... >>> No. It's only used to populate /sys/devices/soc0/revision. I don't think >>> that's particularly important. >> >> But it's a feature that works today. Why should we break it? > > I don't expect people to not update their DT actually... But that's not how DT works; old DTs must continue to work. >>> sdhci needs this for faster modes I guess which will also need extra DT >>> properties looking at the chromeos driver. The others definitely will need >>> an updated DT. For randomness I haven't seen any appreciable difference in when >>> the 'random: nonblocking pool is initialized' message appears between having >>> the randomness addition or not. Most likely the bulk of the randomness comes >>> from serial interrupts rather than the fuse data. So I don't think the move to >>> a driver probe will cause any problem. Nor do I think the lack of an updated >>> DT will cause problems. >> >> But what advantage do we have by actively changing it? > > We need to move the code anyway when we will have 64bit SoCs. Using DT also > allows us to reuse the code even when the base address changes in the future. > If it weren't for Tegra20 A03p, we could also drop the hack to enable the > clocks directly, but use CCF instead. Sure we need to move the code out of arch/arm so it can be shared with arm64. However, that doesn't imply that we need to change anything about the way the code works or is initialized; we can still do all the initialization in response to a function call from the arch/board support, and not in response to driver probe. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
