From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZXo0V-00047L-8y for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 10:14:08 +0000 Received: by lbbmp1 with SMTP id mp1so8595559lbb.1 for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 03:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:15:59 +0300 From: Peter Mamonov Message-ID: <20150904131559.334f65da@berta> In-Reply-To: <20150903181636.GL18700@pengutronix.de> References: <1441287526-2077-1-git-send-email-pmamonov@gmail.com> <1441295192.3102.9.camel@pengutronix.de> <20150903193155.1127b6d5fa5948cc70ec4a16@gmail.com> <20150903181636.GL18700@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: intf_platform_ide: add OF bindings To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi, Sascha! On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:16:36 +0200 Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 07:31:55PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:46:32 +0200 > > Lucas Stach wrote: > > > > > Hi Peter. > > > > > > Sorry, but this patch is wrong. You can't just make up completely > > > ad-hoc DT bindings. You are pushing platformdata 1:1 into the DT, > > > which is not how the conversion to DT should be done. > > > > > > There is also no pre-existing binding for "ata-generic" in the > > > Linux kernel which would define any of those properties. > > > > Hmmm. in linux-4.2/drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c I see > > "ata-generic" with "reg-shift" and "pio-mode" properties. > > It seems this binding comes from the good old days when writing > binding doc was an optional task ;) > > Sascha > So, do we need this linux-like binding in barebox, or should we prefer a soc-specific approach, as Lucas described: > Most likely your IDE controller is inside some SoC specific block, > with a specific compatible, which may also handle clocks and other > required stuff and that one should instantiate the IDE driver if > needed. ? Peter _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox