On 08/09/2011 02:32 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > On 08/09/2011 08:17 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 08/09/2011 09:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote: >>> In working with the socketcan developers, we have come to the conclusion >>> the fsl-flexcan device tree bindings need to be cleaned up. >>> The driver does not depend upon any properties other than the required >>> properties >>> so we are removing the file. >> >> That is not the criterion for whether something should be expresed in >> the device tree. It's a description of the hardware, not a Linux driver >> configuration file. If there are integration parameters that can not be >> inferred from "this is FSL flexcan v1.0", they should be expressed in >> the node. >> >> Removing the binding altogether seems extreme as well -- we should have >> bindings for all devices, even if there are no special properties. > > Yes, of course. The commit message misleading. We do not intend to > remove the binding but just a few unused and confusing properties.
Is it a matter of the current driver not caring, or the properties just not making sense for any reasonable driver (ambiguous, inferrable from the flexcan version, software configuration, etc)? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
