Re: Ang: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Setting GPIOs simultaneously

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:20:13PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
[...]
> >But any users of the legacy bindings should be in-tree.
> 
> ehh, it was working until you made it OF only. Why do call the native
> way legacy?  It is the method all non OF arch uses.

It's legacy because there are no in-tree users anymore. Nowadays
we're trying to pass all needed information via OF, and we're
trying to avoid ugly platform-dependant hacks. Your SPI scheme
can be easily described via OF, but sure, it's hard to implement
it with the current SPI/OF subsystem.

[...]
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg34738.html
> >^^^ I'm dreaming about this framework. I.e. true addressing
> >    for chip-selects. :-)
> 
> This is probably needed to support most SPI users out there, but until
> such framework is in place I think the native methods need to stay, right?

I'm not the right person to ask. I can only express my opinions.
The maintainer make final decision.

But if you ask for my opinion, I don't think that they should stay
unless we'll see a user in the mainline.

> As is now, SPI has regressed w.r.t earlier releases.

Yes and no. Yes, it has "regressed" for out-of-tree code, and no,
I don't feel sorry about that. :-)

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/