From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Sagar Dharia <sdharia@codeaurora.org>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        bp@suse.de, poeschel@lemonage.de, treding@nvidia.com,
        gong.chen@linux.intel.com, andreas.noever@gmail.com,
        alan@linux.intel.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        jkosina@suse.cz, sharon.dvir1@mail.huji.ac.il, joe@perches.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, james.hogan@imgtec.com,
        michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kheitke@audience.com, mlocke@codeaurora.org, agross@codeaurora.org,
        sheetal.tigadoli@gmail.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/6] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:59:02 +0200
Message-ID: <5047442.UXEhPc2Isi@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160428143801.GO3217@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1461801489-16254-1-git-send-email-sdharia@codeaurora.org> <7478716.z4vdp0mVTA@wuerfel> <20160428143801.GO3217@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1538
Lines: 31

On Thursday 28 April 2016 15:38:01 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even
> > if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board
> > specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever
> > firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices.
> 
> Right, in this particular case I don't think it makes a huge difference
> but what you were talking about was "ancient pre-DT times" rather than
> something specific to this particular case.  That's definitely a thing
> that people keep thinking and it's good to push back on it since we do
> have non-DT cases to worry about (some architectures, other firmwares,
> things like PCI cards with other components on them and so on).

Ok, I see what you mean. It turns out I made the exact same
comment on the first review five years ago (phrased more
nicely back then):

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/3192/focus=3193

My comment this time was for the particular driver, but I'd
still also maintain that a new subsystem in general should not
start out by addressing the needs of traditional board files.
I don't think we have merge new platform support on any
architecture that would need this in the past years and
stuff like spi_board_info and i2c_board_info is only really
used on really old machines (but not going away any time soon
either).

	Arnd