From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1761353AbdADRtL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:49:11 -0500
Received: from mail.savoirfairelinux.com ([208.88.110.44]:39360 "EHLO
        mail.savoirfairelinux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752382AbdADRsj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:48:39 -0500
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "open list\:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] ARM: dts: armada-388-clearfog: Utilize new DSA binding
In-Reply-To: <20170104174248.GG5517@lunn.ch>
References: <20170102022249.10657-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20170102022249.10657-4-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <87shoyeo2j.fsf@free-electrons.com> <5a40436a-ebad-8a94-c5c5-546ba33ba545@gmail.com> <87fuky7mjt.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20170104174248.GG5517@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:48:20 -0500
Message-ID: <87bmvmvhqz.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:

>> That makes me think that we should either remove, or use different
>> values for the version described in net/dsa/dsa.c:
>> 
>>     char dsa_driver_version[] = "0.1";
>> 
>> Today this is absolutely useless and erroneous.
>
> I think it has been useless for over 9 years.

Do we want to get rid of it, or do we want to have a string version per
DSA implementation? (old vs. new bindings).

I don't like the actual way to distinguish between the two (grep'ing
dmesg as Florian shown). Maybe a pr_info in dsa2.c would be enough to
inform about DSA "v2". What do you guys prefer?

Thanks,

        Vivien