From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757471AbcFAHtx (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 03:49:53 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.133]:64124 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750835AbcFAHtv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 03:49:51 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: linux-arm-kernel , arm@kernel.org, Russell King , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 09:49:51 +0200 Message-ID: <6243293.lmvRqvQAd6@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-22-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1464682628-12163-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <4992506.m4GEHIOqdc@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:i2uhe4xgNSjUh81p9CCSUDeiBLou0uvLkxBuNIIwI8R6qlTO0/c n2Dn3DAeiodUH3a1tOl6dfJaMYH8qKYgAuGvXQYFLqI29vdu4ZSGe53LcJ7Nn+nK5Rx3ceE EdCt1N3IrQJLOt78GS3C3R9n11lqasRwA5vo0QkcVt2TNQH/nmMFh36vwx5YvBxNfSaNDpe WUt43qyOnvCUCyKNMuOgA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:a/LlRdvtSrE=:20jCCHHf21AJBI3eAYThPV UxVxurLIXsOAk5bLOzdDfHXruYBFa3X6HXkCPAeEP7JgSFsmB4URx6p0DzpV/U9BvebrQkJdX If0cVKH/YQ9HGcq0Cc/0JLuRt9FkGOFKZJv420NYh6Hp4u7EixvCu5fdFs5Sl9CUGh3JFfNFa lTzfYVOhZDFlf1qQyVsb9v9F255ll2BiHhzSadU9fegv+NozlSfJesqPdwgUoyMKr0Y9WSNg/ 0Iz/7vjdPN3kk7X8TQ7TWU0DwPFjUX0bqZ9vWDssiAOJDAXOGlPxPmtHWin6tpq2F/rFcvco7 54Ma81PGVxG7P9lmRO2I178I4BjuCDY2tgIuCEdPDEwCtoDqSFQCcBX7bIRpgeZdFe8s7r+FS dSlZoNvOoUIWRTN22dWfCSG1S5OTQYhWH9MQUxfBFlyFPV9T5LqFto8l1EZXVW13FpwGV1mRf 981529Eox8j1X/0vDFyO1ZRxcue7Ul6hgQRuFxWa+a6sI/wFou+XAuTYI8hHXmHer7EZYPQMV 9zSPxaM0DB5a3ShB57hDQSrEQ7QlTFXnC/nllALLxkZ1P4VU9F+kdwKlzVyHjVn6X+y1w9kbo +HC0u+3RgSB88u5wPioKir8yLjt1gxdqm+jyiauaU2BIaCqW0g37nf1CDl/CxHIVp0w1vw46A hKL2yyt65Hkr98YCQ2RYrqVDqM593BDr5YDv6rMT3qHIdp0LZ/eocBi3ZJqeJFFcO34rOejiM EqUvXTcEIul8d1Bk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:30:03 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Arnd. > > 2016-05-31 18:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:17:08 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> Commit 307d40c56b0c ("ARM: uniphier: rework SMP code to support new > >> System Bus binding") added a new DT binding for SMP code, but still > >> kept old code for the backward compatibility. > >> > >> Linux 4.6 was out with both bindings supported, so it should not > >> hurt to drop the old code now. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada > >> > > > > That explanation is in general not sufficient. Are you sure that > > nobody is shipping a machine with their own dts file that is not > > merged upstream, and that there are no bootloaders that have a > > hardcoded dtb file that we need to support indefinitely? > > > > I have to confess that almost no one (except me) uses this upstreamed > code directly. > It can boot, but it is almost useless for practical uses (at least for > production level) > because it still lacks lots of drivers. > > Our products based on ARM 32bit SoCs were shipped with old kernel > (without device tree) that were never upstreamed. That's fine, a lot of companies work like this when the upstreaming starts, just mention this in the changelog. > Socionext is now trying to change the development procedure > and the situation will be much better for ARM64 SoC products; it will be > more community-based development, although they are not shipped yet. > > So, the answer is, nobody is shipping ARM32 products using this upstream code. > Device Tree is not used in the first place. > (But, I still believe I should keep upstreaming.) Ok. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 09:49:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding In-Reply-To: References: <1464682628-12163-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <4992506.m4GEHIOqdc@wuerfel> Message-ID: <6243293.lmvRqvQAd6@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:30:03 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Arnd. > > 2016-05-31 18:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:17:08 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> Commit 307d40c56b0c ("ARM: uniphier: rework SMP code to support new > >> System Bus binding") added a new DT binding for SMP code, but still > >> kept old code for the backward compatibility. > >> > >> Linux 4.6 was out with both bindings supported, so it should not > >> hurt to drop the old code now. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada > >> > > > > That explanation is in general not sufficient. Are you sure that > > nobody is shipping a machine with their own dts file that is not > > merged upstream, and that there are no bootloaders that have a > > hardcoded dtb file that we need to support indefinitely? > > > > I have to confess that almost no one (except me) uses this upstreamed > code directly. > It can boot, but it is almost useless for practical uses (at least for > production level) > because it still lacks lots of drivers. > > Our products based on ARM 32bit SoCs were shipped with old kernel > (without device tree) that were never upstreamed. That's fine, a lot of companies work like this when the upstreaming starts, just mention this in the changelog. > Socionext is now trying to change the development procedure > and the situation will be much better for ARM64 SoC products; it will be > more community-based development, although they are not shipped yet. > > So, the answer is, nobody is shipping ARM32 products using this upstream code. > Device Tree is not used in the first place. > (But, I still believe I should keep upstreaming.) Ok. Arnd