lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 1/6] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > > This looks like an artifact of ancient pre-DT times. I'd say kill it off before
> > > someone starts using it.

> > Not every architecture uses DT, and even on architectures with DT
> > support it isn't always the only firmware. In this specific case it's
> > questionable how many people are going to implement Slimbus at this
> > point but in general insisting that we go DT only doesn't seem great.

> Nothing wrong with adding support for manual board files later if
> we have a good reason for it, but at the moment, this seems completely
> ARM/ARM64 specific.

It's not in theory, but in practice nobody other that Qualcomm is ever
likely to release a controller.

> I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even
> if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board
> specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever
> firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices.

Right, in this particular case I don't think it makes a huge difference
but what you were talking about was "ancient pre-DT times" rather than
something specific to this particular case. That's definitely a thing
that people keep thinking and it's good to push back on it since we do
have non-DT cases to worry about (some architectures, other firmwares,
things like PCI cards with other components on them and so on).
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-28 17:01    [W:0.076 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site