> -----Original Message----- > From: Meador Inge [mailto:mead...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM > To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc- > d...@lists.ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset" > > Apologies for the bad post. Bad day for email ... Please ignore the top > reply in my previous reply. The full reply is the below the quote. > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Meador Inge <meador_i...@mentor.com> > wrote: > > > > On 02/10/2011 02:42 PM, Meador Inge wrote: > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Meador Inge<meador_i...@mentor.com> > >> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM > >> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset" > >> To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > >> Cc: devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard< > >> hollis_blanch...@mentor.com> > >> > >> > >> This patch set provides a binding for Open PIC and implements support > >> for a new property, specified by that binding, called "pic-no-reset". > >> With "pic-no-reset" in place the "protected-sources" property is no > >> longer needed and its full implementation was removed. > >> "protected-sources" is still checked for, however, for legacy > >> purposes. > >> > >> For v3 of this patch the Open PIC binding was changed to be more > >> consistent with existing bindings, several DTS files were cleaned up, > >> "no-reset" was changed to "pic-no-reset", and a check to treat > >> "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset" was added. > >> > > From the feedback I have received so far, the fundamental ideas in this > patch set are sane. However, the following issues still need agreement: > > 1. What should be the name of the no reset property? > "pic-no-reset" or "no-reset"? > 2. Should we just keep the existing protected sources implementation > in place? > > For (1), I prefer "no-reset".
I also prefer plain "no-reset". The property is on a pic node so "pic" on the property seems redundant. > For (2), I still think that we can make "no- > reset" a synonym for "protected-sources" and that things will work out. > > Ben, you said that you would really like to leave the protected sources > implementation alone. Is the mechanism implemented in "PATCH > v3 3/4" [1] of having "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset" > not suitable? I thought what Ben was getting at was that there is existing firmware that may provide a device tree with protected-sources, and thus we should continue supporting it for backwards compatibility. So, I would say add "no-reset" as the preferred mechanism going forward, but keep "protected-sources" for backwards compatibility. Stuart _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev