[RFC PATCH v2 1/4] drm: Introduce generic probe function for component based masters.

[Liviu Dudau]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:50:27PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:42:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:25:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > Please don't move this into here, it's completely inappropriate.  Just
> > > > > because something makes use of this does not mean they only support
> > > > > 32-bit DMA.  Besides, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's
> > > > > OF-based or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Understood. My thinking process was that component-based drivers are all
> > > > OF-enabled (how else do you make use of the framework?) and 32-bit DMA is
> > > > present in 2 out of 3 drivers that are converted, so it looks to be common
> > > > enough that adding it to armada would not hurt. It was all done in the name of
> > > > collecting common code in a single function.
> > > 
> > > Which is an utterly crap reason.
> > > 
> > > It's also not appropriate.  I'm really not sure why you think that moving
> > > this here would in any way be appropriate - from my point of view, the
> > > mere proposal is utterly insane.
> > > 
> > > The "container" device does not do any DMA, so it's inappropriate for
> > > it to have DMA masks set or negotiated on it.  So, actually, no one
> > > should be setting the DMA mask for their container device.  It's wrong.
> > 
> > I think (and my opinion doesn't carry as much wheight here on dri-devel
> > than intel-gfx) the above is over the top bashing of a new contributor to
> > drm who really seems trying to do right. I think that's unecessary,
> > especially since you follow up with the reasonable reply below.
> 
> It's justified because it took _two_ messages to get the point across.
> The first one asking nicely didn't make the necessary impact.

Russell, I've got your point and I have accepted it after first message. Go
back to my initial reply and re-read it. It starts with "Understood. ...."

I'm not looking for a flame war. I am more interested in knowing if you think
that the armada code re-org makes sense or the use of -EINVAL to mean that dev->of_node
is missing.

Coming to armada changes, I would also like to know if pdev->dev.platform_data is
in use at all. If so, are there any examples where that is being setup? Because I
think the "missing 'ports' property" message is missleading.

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> -- 
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
> 

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯