From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752430AbdLFRuK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:50:10 -0500 Received: from fllnx209.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.16]:14584 "EHLO fllnx209.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbdLFRuI (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:50:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data To: Mark Brown CC: Liam Girdwood , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , =?UTF-8?Q?Beno=c3=aet_Cousson?= , Tony Lindgren , , , References: <20171129213300.20021-1-afd@ti.com> <20171129213300.20021-10-afd@ti.com> <20171201132606.vyw7wthmql5trkwq@sirena.org.uk> <4fee76ef-e518-69b6-3bcc-f65b0a31cacc@ti.com> <20171206124540.GC1827@finisterre> <10f1b19b-4a0a-e336-b757-933d46b5c8e9@ti.com> <20171206173059.qw4tt7nizmyo6xbl@sirena.org.uk> From: "Andrew F. Davis" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:48:43 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171206173059.qw4tt7nizmyo6xbl@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/06/2017 11:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:19:28AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> On 12/06/2017 06:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Then if you want to upstream the driver you'll have to add the platform >>> data support again. Like I say not all architectures have anything >>> other than board files. > >> Then they can try, but they will rightfully get nack'd and told to stop >> using board files and use DT/ACPI. Most upstream architectures don't use >> board files anymore anyway, so I doubt this will ever happen. > > No. To repeat, not all architectures use DT or ACPI. Expecting someone > to impelement DT or ACPI support for an entire architecture and try to > bring the ecosystem for that architecture along in order to add machine > support is obviously totally unreasonable. > That would be unreasonable I agree, but it's also completely hypothetical, as again, there are no in-tree users and most platforms are DT/ACPI, so the odds of anyone needing it are next to nothing.