[PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: Change dw-apb-timer-osc and dw-apb-timer-sp to just dw-apb-timer

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:43:16PM -0500, dinguyen at altera.com wrote:
> From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at altera.com>
> 
> "dw-apb-timer-osc" and "dw-apb-timer-sp" are the same implementation of the
> DW APB timer, just fed by different clocks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at altera.com>
> CC: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely at linaro.org>
> CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
> Cc: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
> CC: Jamie Iles <jamie at jamieiles.com>
> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org>
> Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel at denx.de>
> Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dw-apb.txt |   21 +++----------------
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3066a.dtsi                   |    6 +++---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi                   |   24 +++++++++++-----------
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_cyclone5.dts           |    8 ++++----
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_vt.dts                 |    8 ++++----
>  5 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dw-apb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dw-apb.txt
> index eb2327b..0a1020e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dw-apb.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dw-apb.txt
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  * Designware APB timer
>  
>  Required properties:
> -- compatible: "snps,dw-apb-timer-sp" or "snps,dw-apb-timer-osc"
> +- compatible: "snps,dw-apb-timer"
>  - reg: physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped
>    region.
>  - interrupts: IRQ line for the timer.

Here's a classic example of where we will eventually need to keep the ABI. You
can add a comment that the preferred compatible value is the new one, but the
old ones still need to be handled by the drivers, and shouldn't be removed.

That is, of course, if people are happy with the current binding and want to
keep it instead of revising it before declaring it locked in.


-Olof