Re: [PATCH] devicetree - document using aliases to set spi bus number.

From: Frank Rowand
Date: Wed May 25 2016 - 14:06:52 EST

On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>>>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
>>>>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
>>>>> code and obviously the "bus number" is something of a Linux
>>>>> specific concept which would need some explanation if we were going
>>>>> to document it. It's something I'm struggling a bit to see a
>>>>> robust use case for that isn't better served by parsing sysfs,
>>>>> what's the goal here?
>>>> If this isn't something that should be in the Documentation/devicetree
>>>> because it's not generig enough, where should Linux-specific
>>>> interpretations such as this be documented?
>>> I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not clear
>>> that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask for one but
>>> you've not articulated one in this reply. I am much less gung ho than
>>> Grant on this one, even as a Linux specific interface it seems very
>>> legacy.
> No, we don't.
>> The time for the use case was when the patch was accepted.
> Ideally, yes, but things getting missed in review or later deciding
> things were a bad idea can always be debated again.
>> It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.
> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.

If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated so
people do not attempt to use it.

> Rob