DT version of kirkwood_ge0x_init()

[Jason Cooper]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:43:02AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:34:42PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > > On 06/04/13 12:18, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> > > >I noticed how most of the DT-aware board-setup files only have a single
> > > ><board>_init() function, calling kirkwood_ge00_init() with a struct
> > > >mv643xx_eth_platform_data as a single argument.
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering -- is there a reason why we cannot remove all this
> > > >board-specific code and move all this to the DT?
> > > 
> > > Gerlando,
> > > 
> > > DT for mv643xx_eth is on the way (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/29/527).
> > > We wait for the driver to surface to relax branch dependencies and then
> > > move all DT Orion SoCs to it.
> > > 
> > > > I would really love to have all our boards under a single
> > > > CONFIG_<FAMILY>_DT and a single compatible string, with all the
> > > > differences within the DTs itself -- no more #ifdef CONFIG_<BOARD>,
> > > > no more of_machine_is_compatible("boardXXX").
> > > 
> > > All those will happen if there is DT support for mv643xx_eth which
> > > is the only driver left without DT and board dependencies. But there
> > > will be no CONFIG_LACIE_DT or whatever, but just CONFIG_KIRKWOOD_DT
> > > and board dependent stuff described in the corresponding dts.
> > 
> > Gerlando,
> > 
> > Yes, the mess you describe is temporary.  Those board files used to have
> > a lot more code in them, legacy init of partitions, MPP, LEDs, etc.  As
> > we have converted drivers, they have gotten smaller and smaller.
> > 
> > Now, with Sebastian's hard work, we'll finally be able to remove them
> > and kirkwood will be completely DT.  We're very excited about this. :)
> > 
> > Next, we'll move the Marvell DT boards over to mach-mvebu/ and only
> > legacy boards in -kirkwood/, -orion5x/, -dove/, and -mv78xx0/ will
> > remain.  After a few releases we will deprecate any legacy boards which
> > haven't been converted to DT.
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> While I have obviously planed to convert all the LaCie boards to DT,
> I think that removing the legacy support so quickly is a little bit
> harsh.

Yeah, my wording might not have been the best.  See below.

> IMHO, it could be nice to wait the end-of-life for all this products
> before removing their support.

I'd prefer to convert them to DT, then keep them as long as folks are
interested in them.  If no one cares about a board, and no one wants to
convert it to DT or test the conversion, why keep it around?

Let me clarify, by 'deprecate them' I meant *begin* the process of
deprecating them.  eg marking them as deprecated for around three
releases or so.

thx,

Jason.