Subject: [PATCH 04/10] bus: introduce an Marvell EBU MBus driver

From: [email-masked] (Jason Gunthorpe)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:43:58 -0700

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:06:55PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

> Really, I've sent this PCIe driver first on December, 7th, and it was
> working. 99% percent of the problems have been around the Device Tree,
> and continue to be around this. Wasn't DT supposed to make things
> easier? I am really surprised by the amount of nitpicking that this
> driver receives, when I see how incoherent the pinctrl DT bindings for
> the various SoC are for example...

Well, please consider that the push to make the DT a stable ABI means
it should be nearly as hard to change as the userspace ABI. If you've
watched the kernel you know how rough it is to do that. :(

Further, the PCI DT binding needs to implement the documented OF
specifications. It is not nitpicking to say that X does not conform to
the OF document.

pinctrl doesn't have an OF spec so people are doing SOC unique things.

I think a reasonable take away from some of this is that it may be
worthwhile to propose a DT binding before writing code for it,
especially if it is a new or complex concept.

> At this point, I have absolutely no idea what direction to take to
> bring this further. I'm basically in a dead-end.

I think Jason C. has said he is fine with bringing in the MBUS driver as
is.

The PCI-E driver's DT binding looks great to me, I have no further
comments at all, and I believe everyone else's comments related to DT
are delt with as well.

The huge discussion about the SW PCI-E bridge seems to be concluded
and everyone is agreeing on that point too.

Soo, I think you are not at all at a dead end, but nearly finished :)

Regards,
Jason