lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] SATA: OCTEON: support SATA on OCTEON platform
    On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:17 AM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
    > On 01/21/2015 08:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
    >>
    >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:16:28PM +0000, David Daney wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> @@ -67,6 +76,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id ahci_of_match[] = {
    >>>>> { .compatible = "ibm,476gtr-ahci", },
    >>>>> { .compatible = "snps,dwc-ahci", },
    >>>>> { .compatible = "hisilicon,hisi-ahci", },
    >>>>> + { .compatible = "cavium,octeon-7130-ahci", },
    >>>>> {},
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I was under the impression that the strings other than "generic-ahci"
    >>>> were only for compatibility with existing DTBs. Why do we need to add
    >>>> new platform-specific strings here?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Because it is an "existing DTB", The device tree doesn't contain the
    >>> compatible property of "generic-ahci", only "cavium,octeon-7130-ahci".
    >>
    >>
    >> While the DTB may already exist, the string "cavium,octeon-7130-ahci"
    >> isn't in mainline, and as far as I can see has never been supported.
    >
    >
    > There seems to be a disconnect here. The DTB comes from the hardware boot
    > environment. The hardware is in some cases already deployed. It is for all
    > practical purposes, impossible to change the DTB.
    >
    > The idea that the kernel source code controls the content of the device tree
    > doesn't apply here.

    I have to agree that adding the compatible string here is okay.
    Allowing/using generic names is the exception, not the rule. We're
    usually pushing the other way. People often complain about having to
    add a compatible string when they don't need it (yet).

    However, the argument that the privately developed DTB has to be
    accepted as is is complete crap. Maybe you have done a good job and
    have all straightforward bindings, so having them accepted won't be a
    big deal. We should be reasonable and not bikeshed things which are
    already in use and only affect a single device. Many of the bindings
    in vendor trees I have seen are a complete mess, but I expect better
    from you.

    Rob


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-01-22 15:41    [W:7.740 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site