From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932560AbcEYRtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 13:49:36 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:34997 "EHLO mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043AbcEYRte (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 13:49:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:49:32 -0500 From: Rob Herring To: Frank Rowand Cc: Mark Brown , Christer Weinigel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number. Message-ID: <20160525174932.GA10753@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1464107960-10775-1-git-send-email-christer@weinigel.se> <20160524172045.GN8206@sirena.org.uk> <57449784.4070108@weinigel.se> <20160524183256.GP8206@sirena.org.uk> <5744E51A.1040506@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5744E51A.1040506@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote: > >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't > >>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI > >>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux > >>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going > >>> to document it. It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a > >>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs, > >>> what's the goal here? > > > >> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree > >> because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific > >> interpretations such as this be documented? > > > > I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear > > that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask for one but > > you've not articulated one in this reply. I am much less gung ho than > > Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very > > legacy. No, we don't. > > > > The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted. Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding things were a bad idea can always be debated again. > It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it. Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them. Rob