On 20 February 2013 19:14, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> On 20 February 2013 18:06, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: >> > I would first like to get an answer to the question I asked in my first >> > mail, >> > which is what the use case of non-DT support in this driver is. If this >> > is used only by a new platform that has to use DT anyway, or by an existing >> > platform that is easy enough to convert, we probably shouldn't do all this >> > at all. >> > >> >> If the platform can convert to dt, then we do not have such issue. >> The question is do we allow the existing non-dt platforms to use it >> before converting? > > I think the answer to that is "it depends". It's basically a question of > how much work it would be to convert the platforms that need it over to > DT, and how much of the interface it actually needs. E.g. if there is > only one in-tree platform that needs to use syscon but can't easily be > moved over to DT, but that platform can only have a single syscon device, > then we don't need any of the matching support but could simply return > the first regmap area we have in the list. > > Of course, if the platform in question is out of tree, I would argue > that the whatever patches are needed by that platform should also > remain out of tree. >
Basically i agree with your point. Alexander seems to be the first non-dt user of syscon driver. He may answer whether they could choose to convert to dt first. But one question i wonder is that it may be hard to know how many poteintial non-dt platforms may use syscon. Regards Dong Aisheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
