On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 13:17 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:35:34 PM CET Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:07 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 09:39 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:53:21PM +1100, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Lee's next email in the chain poked Arnd for an opinion, but Arnd
> > > > didn't reply.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't mind. I moved these bindings separately so we could just drop
> > > > the patch if there was push-back. If we drop the whole idea I'll need
> > > > to apply a small fix to patch 5/6 to avoid creating the syscon
> > > > subdirectory.
> > > 
> > > The sub-directory is a good idea for drivers who are *solely* syscon
> > > based.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, I wasn't saying otherwise, just commenting on my motivation and
> > approach.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell all of the bindings I move here describe solely
> > syscon-based devices.
> > 
> 
> But do we know which ones they are?
> 
> In principle, any syscon device node can have a specialized driver
> exporting an interface, the bindings always allow it to be done
> one way or the other, and we may change the driver or run a different
> OS that has decided differently.
> 

Right; for the Linux case there are currently no driver implementations
that match on the compatible strings in the documents I moved (save for
qcom,tcsr, except that it's the qcom,gsbi compatible driver parsing a
phandle to the qcom,tcsr syscon node).

However, I can't guarantee the solely-syscon property for other
operating systems. Given that, it now looks to me like we shouldn't
have such a directory at all.

Cheers,

Andrew