Le 10/02/2016 16:32, David Daney a écrit : > On 02/10/2016 03:49 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:02:23AM -0800, David Daney wrote: >>> On 02/10/2016 09:36 AM, Matt Redfearn wrote: >>>> + pr_warn(FW_WARN "%s: Legacy property '%s'. Please remove\n", >>>> + node->full_name, legacy_name); >>> >>> I don't like this warning message. >>> >>> The vast majority of people that see it will not be able to change their >>> firmware. So it will be forever cluttering up their boot logs. >> >> Until they switch to use APPENDED_DTB. :-) >> > > I am philosophically opposed to making the DTB an internal kernel > implementation detail. > > For OCTEON boards, it is an ABI between the boot firmware and the > kernel, and is impractical to change. > > One could argue that many years ago, when the decision was made (by me), > that we should have opted to carry in the kernel source code tree the > DTS files for all OCTEON boards ever made, but we did not do that. Due > to the non-reversibility of time, the decision is hard to reverse. > > In the case of this MMC driver, the only real difference is that two > properties have legacy names that later had differing "official" names. > The overhead of carrying the legacy bindings is very low. Since there is an existing FDT patching infrastructure in arch/mips/cavium-octeon/ would not that be a place where you could put an adaptation layer between your legacy firmware properties and the upstream binding? -- Florian
