Hi Mike, On 14/05/13 17:59, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting James Hogan (2013-05-13 14:30:46) >> On 13 May 2013 20:57, Mike Turquette <[email protected]> wrote: >>> One reason for this is the difficulty some have had with setting flags >>> from DT bindings. >> >> Could you elaborate on this? I've been adding flags to DT bindings for >> this sort of thing, but it feels a bit like it's in that grey area of >> not really describing the hardware itself. This information needs to >> be specified somehow though. >> > > It depends on the flag. A good example is the CLK_DIVIDER_ONE_BASED > flag which does describe the hardware. It informs the binding that > indexing starts at 1, not 0, which is a valid part of the hardware > description. > > However flags that deal with software policy do not belong on DT. > CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT certainly does not belong in the DT binding since > this is a pure Linux-ism. Every binding just needs to be reviewed on a > case-by-case basis to make sure the flags are related only to the > hardware.
So given the desire to eliminate platform code, is there a particular way that these other flags can be specified instead of DT bindings? Cheers James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
