[PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: mach-shmobile: r8a7779: add SATA support
Simon Horman
horms at verge.net.au
Tue Mar 5 00:52:37 EST 2013
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:33:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:28:09AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> Hi Simon
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:41:48PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:39:14PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> >> >> > From: Vladimir Barinov <vladimir.barinov at cogentembedded.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Add SATA clock for r8a7779 SoC (for both device tree and usual cases).
> >> >> > Register SATA controller as a "late" platform device on r8a7779 SoC.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have the a binding in the device tree (which you do through patch 1/3),
> >> >> then there's no reason to have a platform device for it.
> >> >
> >> > Hi Olof,
> >> >
> >> > the DT exists but currently the marzen board brings up all
> >> > of its devices using platform devices. Which if nothing else is
> >> > internally consistent.
> >> >
> >> > I suppose it would be possible to add a call to
> >> > r8a7779_add_standard_devices_dt() and have the board bring
> >> > up this device using DT and the rest using platform drivers
> >> > (until the drivers are migrated to DT).
> >> >
> >> > Would that be your preferred option?
> >> >
> >> > Magnus, how do you feel about this idea?
> >>
> >> I fail to see the upside I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> I believe the best way forward is for us to keep on following the same
> >> style as we have done so far. So for drivers they should begin by
> >> interfacing as regular platform devices drivers and then add DT
> >> support incrementally. This allows us to try out things in a non-ABI
> >> kind of way and it also allows us to add support for various hardware
> >> feature that do not yet support DT like in the case of DMA Engine.
> >> With platform devices we can also use the driver with the SH
> >> architecture.
> >
> > Sure, but in this case the DT bindings are set (by virtue of having been
> > merged) and it is my understanding that they offer the same features as
> > the platform device.
>
> And if we want to add an experimental feature, how do you suggest we proceed?
I wonder if this is a general problem for all drivers that are
initialised via DT. I wonder how they add experimental features
without setting bindings in stone.
> > As it is a new device driver I lean towards Olof's suggestion.
> >
> >> You can of course do some mixed DT and platform device support on a
> >> board-level, but I don't really see what would be good about it.
> >> Actually, I believe that will just make things overly complicated
> >> without giving us the possibility to try out certain experimental
> >> features with platform-device-only interface.
> >
> > I think that what would be good about it is:
> >
> > * The DT code would be exercised by people using the default board file.
> > * The platform device would not need to be added.
>
> Sure. It is however just a couple of lines of data. Also, this
> bypasses the idea of the -reference boards, but hey.
>
> >> Of course Simon, if you prefer to follow your proposal above then go
> >> ahead. However, please consider the case when this code will be back
> >> ported to LTSI-3.4.
> >
> > With regards to backporting, the platform driver patch still exists
> > (e.g. on the ML) so it can be used for backporting as needed.
>
> And then there will be different code paths in the back port and in
> the upstream code.
As you say, its only a few lines of code.
>From my point of view I think it would be sane to use DT for initialisation
where we can do so without losing functionality.
However, with all that said. I do accept that this would be a departure
from how shmobile has handled things up until now. And that it is probably
something that needs to be well thought through. So with that in mind I
now plan to merge this patch. The code can be removed it later if appropriate.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list