Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:35:35 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
Cc:     Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@vivo.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel@vivo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram
Message-ID: <20200416213535.GA2511@bogus>
References: <20200416153537.23736-1-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
 <20200416153537.23736-5-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
 <16f8fa2d26d88f22ed05e9870709c2fd5c3960cf.camel@buserror.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16f8fa2d26d88f22ed05e9870709c2fd5c3960cf.camel@buserror.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:35 -0700, Wang Wenhu wrote:
> > +#define UIO_INFO_VER	"devicetree,pseudo"
> 
> What does this mean?  Changing a number into a non-obvious string (Why
> "pseudo"?  Why does the UIO user care that the config came from the device
> tree?) just to avoid setting off Greg's version number autoresponse isn't
> really helping anything.
> 
> > +static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
> > +	{	.compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram",	},

Form is <vendor>,<device> and "uio" is not a vendor (and never will be).

> > +	{},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram = {
> > +	.probe = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_probe,
> > +	.remove = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_remove,
> > +	.driver = {
> > +		.name = DRIVER_NAME,
> > +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +		.of_match_table	= uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match,
> > +	},
> > +};
> 
> Greg's comment notwithstanding, I really don't think this belongs in the
> device tree (and if I do get overruled on that point, it at least needs a
> binding document).  Let me try to come up with a patch for dynamic allocation.

Agreed. "UIO" bindings have long been rejected.

Rob