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 >
