On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:20:13PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: [...] > >But any users of the legacy bindings should be in-tree. > > ehh, it was working until you made it OF only. Why do call the native > way legacy? It is the method all non OF arch uses.
It's legacy because there are no in-tree users anymore. Nowadays we're trying to pass all needed information via OF, and we're trying to avoid ugly platform-dependant hacks. Your SPI scheme can be easily described via OF, but sure, it's hard to implement it with the current SPI/OF subsystem. [...] > >http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg34738.html > >^^^ I'm dreaming about this framework. I.e. true addressing > > for chip-selects. :-) > > This is probably needed to support most SPI users out there, but until > such framework is in place I think the native methods need to stay, right? I'm not the right person to ask. I can only express my opinions. The maintainer make final decision. But if you ask for my opinion, I don't think that they should stay unless we'll see a user in the mainline. > As is now, SPI has regressed w.r.t earlier releases. Yes and no. Yes, it has "regressed" for out-of-tree code, and no, I don't feel sorry about that. :-) -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmai...@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
