Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 00/21] ARM: support for ICP DAS LP-8x4x (with dts) | Date | Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:59:35 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 17 April 2014, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 04/17/2014 02:12 PM, Sergei Ianovich wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 12:38 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote > > I have all the > > reasons to believe, that LP-8x4x support would already have be merged, > > if I didn't try to use DT. > > That might be, but that's not the point. We want progress here, and that > means we occasionally have to get rid of legacy.
In most cases, I would strongly support that statement. However, for PXA in particular, my opinion is that progress is not the highest priority as I see no realistic hope of converting all the existing machines over to use DT and change the platform to "multiplatform" support. Anything more modern than PXA I hope we can eventually get at least done for multiplatform, same for a few of the older and simpler platforms.
Then again, I'm certainly not stopping you from trying to use add modern platforms to PXA.
One of the ideas I had earlier was to extend mach-mmp enough to run any fully DT-enabled PXA machines and leave mach-pxa for the old ATAGS support and stuff like the legacy DMA support. However, I don't think we should try that as long as mach-mmp is lacking some essential DT support, e.g. for the clocks that were only partially converted to use the common clock framework.
> > if so > > B. We need to thinks whether it's acceptable to kill support for video > > capture. > > We can't. As I said, for this particular driver, we can keep the old API > around. We can even make it depend on !CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE, so if anyone > actually wants to use it with DT-enabled boards, we finally have a user > and things can be fixed up. Similar for other drivers we can't test > ourselves.
Sounds good to me.
> > In short: > > > > if (A && B) > > we drop old DMA > > else > > we take my patch #7 > > If A works, there's no need to for patch #7, right? If A doesn't work, > we have to check why and fix it. > > Arnd, any oppinion on this?
No strong opinion, I wouldn't object patch #7 if there is a strong reason to not use the dmaengine driver for PXA like I would object doing it for MMP. Then again, I see that you and recently also Laurent are driving a lot of good work on PXA, and if neither the arm-soc maintainers nor the three maintainers listed for mach-pxa have a strong opinion, I'd rather leave it up to your judgement.
Arnd
| |