[PATCH v4 1/2] of: Rename "poweroff-source" property to "system-power-controller"

[Romain Perier]

2014-11-24 13:58 GMT+01:00 Romain Perier <romain.perier at gmail.com>:
> 2014-11-24 12:35 GMT+01:00 Johan Hovold <johan at kernel.org>:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:24:56AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:34:58PM +0000, Auto Configured wrote:
>>> > > From: Romain Perier <romain.perier at gmail.com>
>>> > >
>>> > > It reverts commit a4b4e0461ec5 ("of: Add standard property for poweroff capability").
>>> > > As discussed on the mailing list, it makes more sense to rename back to the
>>> > > old established property name, without the vendor prefix. Problem being that
>>> > > the word "source" usually tends to be used for inputs and that is out of control
>>> > > of the OS. The poweroff capability is an output which simply turns the
>>> > > system-power off. Also, this property might be used by drivers which power-off
>>> > > the system and power back on subsequent RTC alarms. This seems to suggest to
>>> > > remove "poweroff" from the property name and to choose "system-power-controller"
>>> > > as the more generic name. This patchs adds the required renaming changes and
>>> > > defines an helper function which is compatible with both properties, the old one
>>> > > which was only used by tps65910 and the new one without vendor-prefix.
>>> >
>>> > Now this is a bit of a mess.
>>> >
>>> > There's a commit in the mfd tree, 25f833c1171d ("mfd: tps65910: Convert
>>> > ti,system-power-controller DT property to poweroff-source"), which
>>> > breaks all dts using tps65910 since these are never updated to the now
>>> > retracted property name ("poweroff-source").
>>>
>>> My word!
>>>
>>> Romain, what conversation on the MLs are you talking about?
>>
>> I think Romain is referring to this thread:
>>
>>         https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/23/161
>
> Yes, this is this one.
>
>>
>>> > This one should simply be reverted ASAP.
>>>
>>> No need to revert, I can just remove the patch from the MFD tree.
>>
>> Ok, good. Then this is limited to the regulator tree, and we could
>> proceed as I outlined below.
>>
>>
>> Romain, care to resend this patch without the tps65910 chunks?
>
> If you can just drop the patch from mfd tree Lee, please do.
> Yes Johan, np, what I want is that we find a smart solution, nothing more.
>
>>
>> You should also fix the commit message, which claims to define a "helper
>> function which is compatible with both properties", something which was
>> no longer the case.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Johan
>
> So I need to resend this patch which would only introduce an helper
> function which checks for "system-power-controller" property (it would
> also have a new commit message).
> As you suggested, this helper might be named
> "of_device_is_system_power_controller" ?

I mean, the backward compatibility can be handled directly from the
device driver which would use the new property, no ?