From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759965AbcAUSiT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:19 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:38865 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759653AbcAUSiR (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:38:10 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Andy Gross , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, David Brown , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20160121183810.GN6588@sirena.org.uk> References: <1453401227-27135-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IcjWnDSMZlCA27rX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453401227-27135-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> X-Cookie: APL hackers do it in the quad. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: qup: provide proper bus numbers X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --IcjWnDSMZlCA27rX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:33:47PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > This driver reuses pdev->id for spi bus numbers resulting in random > or very large bus numbering when used with device trees. pdev->id > is not the correct choice when using device trees. So add code to What makes you say this, why is pdev->id not "correct"? It is worrying if anything cares what number we pick. > get bus numbers via device tree aliases and if it fails then generate > a unique bus number. The other question is even if this is a good idea why is it something that should be open coded in individual drivers, if we want to change the policy we should be consistent between drivers. --IcjWnDSMZlCA27rX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWoSWRAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ44EH/AvmlJeCVJZwBj7GR7SozV20 FomO/xIbe3PwzCaNcxSrfl0aNNxdHFyJLG6xjLbcbESP+id+XgeXi0uWecVtJAIq EjOwbA3MYZM+RSd4rONh7407qFyXn2jsBWyk/yc5G/xtrUkEQEcXqk47cR2A0xbj DtY3pYeQe5Z40zV9w1CxaS5y6BDYEKBnGQHd8OvuRTwTukOUVsKMoADnEvtGkxFo JkyJaoPKeuthVzx0U9pweOLzysTb+ZzA4iTCBpXouOhx956ZzxKySX4BZEDibQWr iLDjey0VsERg3iuR/1f6OpAbuNjJB4pLcKyQ83Pcca2+yhE9zjtaGHE9dU0hEBM= =w23G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IcjWnDSMZlCA27rX--