Re: [PATCH 2/4] of: DT quirks infrastructure
From: Peter Hurley
Date: Fri Feb 20 2015 - 11:34:51 EST
On 02/20/2015 10:38 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 17:24 , Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2015 10:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 17:00 , Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 02/20/2015 09:35 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>>>> As you said, we can imagine many reasons to have a failure during the
>>>>> production, having several DTB files will increase the risk.
>>>> It's interesting that you don't see the added complexity of open-coding
>>>> the i2c driver or mixing DTS fragments for different designs as increased risk
>>>> (for us all).
>>> You donât have to use it.
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>>> index 5d27dfd..02129e7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
>>> @@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_CRANEBOARD) += board-am3517crane.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_SBC3530) += board-omap3stalker.o
>>> +# DT quirks
>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC),)
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_AM33XX) += am33xx-dt-quirks.o
>> Won't this automatically be included on my Black that supports DT overlays?
> Yes it will. It is a grand total of 498 lines of code, and the total size of
> the code segment is about 2.2K.
> You do realize that youâre probably booting a multi-platform kernel on the
> black right? Including things for all 2xxx/3xxx and 44xx platforms?
> For instance:
>> ~/ti/kernels/linux-github.git $ wc -l arch/arm/mach-omap2/*44xx*.c
>> 443 arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains44xx_data.c
>> 526 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cminst44xx.c
>> 251 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
>> 250 arch/arm/mach-omap2/dpll44xx.c
>> 4864 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c
>> 295 arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
>> 358 arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomains44xx_data.c
>> 62 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prcm_mpu44xx.c
>> 770 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm44xx.c
>> 210 arch/arm/mach-omap2/prminst44xx.c
>> 117 arch/arm/mach-omap2/vc44xx_data.c
>> 130 arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltagedomains44xx_data.c
>> 104 arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp44xx_data.c
>> 8380 total
> I bet those things are far larger than 2.2K. And I also bet that in the
> tradeoff analysis that the board maintainer did things came down to
> increasing complexity so that he can consolidate the kernels for all the
> other platforms he has to support besides the black.
Not that it really matters, but I'm not using any of that.
>>> Some people really do though. As for increased risk
>>> I expect to see arguments instead of a statement.
>> No one is wasting your time with random arguments. Please keep your tone civil.
> A statement like 'increasing risk for all of us' is very open ended. What is
> the risk? How much of it exists?
My point was simply that this trades reduced complexity in one area
with increased complexity in another area.
For you, that trade-off is worth it, but for others, not so much.
FWIW, I agree that some mechanism is required to support the other
use cases. I just don't think ease of manufacturing, when the
submit configuration is the BeagleBone, is where I would hang my hat.
> If I offended you Iâm really sorry though, I meant no such thing.
In re-reading it, I realize I shouldn't have taken offense. Thanks anyway
for the apology.
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/