[GIT PULL] ARM: mvebu: DT changes for v3.17

[Jason Cooper]

Russell,

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:46:53AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:12:52PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:57:27AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > Can you offer any suggestions as to how you would like this resolved?  I
> > > thought when I voiced my opinion as above, and Russell didn't reply,
> > > there was implied acknowledgement...
> > 
> > I didn't reply probably because I didn't see the message and/or I'm busy
> > with other stuff.
> 
> Fair enough.

This is the second time I've asked you for a technical reason not to
merge these DTS patches, only to be met with silence, again.

> > I know that Sebastian asked Rabeeh on IRC yesterday whether the flash
> > chip type could be used to detect the difference between the two, but
> > has not yet received an answer.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > As the two DT descriptions are mutually incompatible, there isn't much
> > choice.  And (afaik) there's no choice of updating the boot loader to
> > a version which can deal with DT - yes it may be u-boot, but I've no
> > idea if modern u-boot works on it, and I really would not like to try.
> 
> Right, what I'm arguing for (since trimmed), is *not* bootloader
> upgrades.  I think Sebastian's changes are ok because:
> 
>  - Most users have production boxes (Sebastian's patches provide their
>    sane default)
> 
>  - Most users of mainline or distro kernels are appending the dtb, so
>    swapping out a dtb, while not ideal, isn't earth-shattering.
> 
> The *only* failure condition I can see is what you already highlighted,
> people who don't know they have an engineering sample.  Sebastian's
> patches work for most people, and on the odd chance of the failure, the
> user simply appends the other dtb and reboots.
> 
> Once we hear back from Rabeeh, at a minimum, we'll add a comment to the
> dts file for distro maintainers and users to find.  If possible, we'll
> add a hook in arch code to read from SPI and adjust the dtb accordingly.

Either of these solutions will be follow-on patches.  There's no need to
hold up this pull request over this information.

> In either case, comment or code, the dts files changed in this series
> are correct and won't change.

I still stand by this.

> I'm sorry to be dense, Russell, but what am I missing from your
> objection?

Olof, Arnd, please merge this request.  I can re-send if you need.

We have more changes pending in mvebu/dt on top of this, and we're
getting very close to the cutoff for the merge window.

thx,

Jason.