On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:31:37AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> Right, so what you're proposing is to come up with a DT description for
> the existing stuff, and then have to change (or at the very least augment)
> that description later when the DPCM stuff goes in.

> What should be done is to sort out DPCM, get that working and then sort out
> the DT side of it, so that everyone gets only one transition to DT, not a
> transition to a half-baked stop-gap DT and then have to go through another
> round of DT changes.  "Because we can" is not a good enough reason not to
> get this sorted properly.

Since we know what the hardware physically looks like we should be able
to write a DT binding which can be stable for both before and after the
DPCM transition.  The bindings would have to be truly awful to require a
rewrite here and as with all the DMA wrapper drivers if parts of DPCM
that don't reflect actual hardware are appearing in the DT we're doing
something wrong.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]