On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:43:02AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:34:42PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > On 06/04/13 12:18, Gerlando Falauto wrote: > > > >I noticed how most of the DT-aware board-setup files only have a single > > > ><board>_init() function, calling kirkwood_ge00_init() with a struct > > > >mv643xx_eth_platform_data as a single argument. > > > > > > > >I was wondering -- is there a reason why we cannot remove all this > > > >board-specific code and move all this to the DT? > > > > > > Gerlando, > > > > > > DT for mv643xx_eth is on the way (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/29/527). > > > We wait for the driver to surface to relax branch dependencies and then > > > move all DT Orion SoCs to it. > > > > > > > I would really love to have all our boards under a single > > > > CONFIG_<FAMILY>_DT and a single compatible string, with all the > > > > differences within the DTs itself -- no more #ifdef CONFIG_<BOARD>, > > > > no more of_machine_is_compatible("boardXXX"). > > > > > > All those will happen if there is DT support for mv643xx_eth which > > > is the only driver left without DT and board dependencies. But there > > > will be no CONFIG_LACIE_DT or whatever, but just CONFIG_KIRKWOOD_DT > > > and board dependent stuff described in the corresponding dts. > > > > Gerlando, > > > > Yes, the mess you describe is temporary. Those board files used to have > > a lot more code in them, legacy init of partitions, MPP, LEDs, etc. As > > we have converted drivers, they have gotten smaller and smaller. > > > > Now, with Sebastian's hard work, we'll finally be able to remove them > > and kirkwood will be completely DT. We're very excited about this. :) > > > > Next, we'll move the Marvell DT boards over to mach-mvebu/ and only > > legacy boards in -kirkwood/, -orion5x/, -dove/, and -mv78xx0/ will > > remain. After a few releases we will deprecate any legacy boards which > > haven't been converted to DT. > > Hi Jason, > > While I have obviously planed to convert all the LaCie boards to DT, > I think that removing the legacy support so quickly is a little bit > harsh.
Yeah, my wording might not have been the best. See below. > IMHO, it could be nice to wait the end-of-life for all this products > before removing their support. I'd prefer to convert them to DT, then keep them as long as folks are interested in them. If no one cares about a board, and no one wants to convert it to DT or test the conversion, why keep it around? Let me clarify, by 'deprecate them' I meant *begin* the process of deprecating them. eg marking them as deprecated for around three releases or so. thx, Jason. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss