From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robdclark@gmail.com (Rob Clark) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:59:39 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] DRM: Armada: add support for drm tda19988 driver In-Reply-To: <20131007110902.GL12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20131006220728.GG12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007111807.5e86ea6e@armhf> <20131007094404.GI12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007124820.2189a4c3@armhf> <20131007110902.GL12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:44:04 +0100 >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> [snip] >> > > It seems we are going backwards: as the Armada based boards will soon >> > > move to full DT (mvebu), you are making an exception for the Cubox, so >> > > that there should be Cubox specific kernels. I don't like that... >> > >> > *Ignored*. You know why. >> >> Sorry. I don't see why. May you explain again? > > I don't run DT because DT lacks most of the features I require on the > cubox. Therefore I can't develop for DT. Simple. Jean-Fran?ois, just as an aside, I really don't think code that can be shared, like tda998x, should encode a DT requirement.. there are plenty of platforms that don't use DT (arm isn't everything, and last I heard aarch64 was going to be ACPI). Beyond that, it is a driver decision whether or not to support only-DT or DT + other.. and as long as there is a common board which can use the driver but which is not DT, there is probably a compelling reason to still support the non-DT case. BR, -R From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Clark Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] DRM: Armada: add support for drm tda19988 driver Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:59:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20131006220728.GG12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007111807.5e86ea6e@armhf> <20131007094404.GI12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131007124820.2189a4c3@armhf> <20131007110902.GL12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131007110902.GL12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Jean-Francois Moine , Jason Cooper , David Airlie , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Daniel Vetter , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:44:04 +0100 >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> [snip] >> > > It seems we are going backwards: as the Armada based boards will soon >> > > move to full DT (mvebu), you are making an exception for the Cubox, = so >> > > that there should be Cubox specific kernels. I don't like that... >> > >> > *Ignored*. You know why. >> >> Sorry. I don't see why. May you explain again? > > I don't run DT because DT lacks most of the features I require on the > cubox. Therefore I can't develop for DT. Simple. Jean-Fran=E7ois, just as an aside, I really don't think code that can be shared, like tda998x, should encode a DT requirement.. there are plenty of platforms that don't use DT (arm isn't everything, and last I heard aarch64 was going to be ACPI). Beyond that, it is a driver decision whether or not to support only-DT or DT + other.. and as long as there is a common board which can use the driver but which is not DT, there is probably a compelling reason to still support the non-DT case. BR, -R