Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756544AbZGNWJd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756000AbZGNWJd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:33 -0400 Received: from ru.mvista.com ([213.79.90.228]:3768 "EHLO buildserver.ru.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755981AbZGNWJc (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:09:31 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Ang: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Setting GPIOs simultaneously Message-ID: <20090714220931.GA11378@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com References: <20090713222005.GA19859@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090713151911.GA28114@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090713173455.GA9866@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1573 Lines: 41 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: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/