From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935294Ab3BTLOz (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:14:55 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:64523 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935115Ab3BTLOx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:14:53 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Dong Aisheng Subject: Re: Re[8]: [PATCH v3] mfd: syscon: Add non-DT support Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:14:49 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-6-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alexander Shiyan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Samuel Ortiz , Mark Brown References: <1361198522-23789-1-git-send-email-shc_work@mail.ru> <201302201006.41287.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201302201114.49304.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ivsqPC5Mh8HdpC0OQibNERtSyzSpgbZFnrcFGmBv1X6 VNwse5ZTG5Gvo1U1PORCZGLwhmQx8jt8Bh6GhEK+EKGGtUCZW2 D87EDYCQMCMK9iKMWhMUgFQUWM4Bb+34KIvozO46MgU1MMOL6Y aYGrxp1kCPIdma53/rN044n29W6YPHVYyos98J5VqoCIgQKN/i oOM70KS9L/tErlCNDXz7Ep/hHPAePvdKcEvvxzYhCPJhIq1xWI XeKag4pkmX/gHAHsYa0wbELNPnLhvlajRuRR6FkzpbXFRl6SXT EiNUnj5o21w3fNNpXWfUDe5thGMx2lD1wRcZVt1QIgUn+raaeA aNsInkkm6h4DLrpejQKk= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On 20 February 2013 18:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I would first like to get an answer to the question I asked in my first mail, > > which is what the use case of non-DT support in this driver is. If this > > is used only by a new platform that has to use DT anyway, or by an existing > > platform that is easy enough to convert, we probably shouldn't do all this > > at all. > > > > If the platform can convert to dt, then we do not have such issue. > The question is do we allow the existing non-dt platforms to use it > before converting? I think the answer to that is "it depends". It's basically a question of how much work it would be to convert the platforms that need it over to DT, and how much of the interface it actually needs. E.g. if there is only one in-tree platform that needs to use syscon but can't easily be moved over to DT, but that platform can only have a single syscon device, then we don't need any of the matching support but could simply return the first regmap area we have in the list. Of course, if the platform in question is out of tree, I would argue that the whatever patches are needed by that platform should also remain out of tree. Arnd