[PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"

[Yoder Stuart-B08248]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
> dev at 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_inge at mentor.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/10/2011 02:42 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Meador Inge<meador_inge at 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 at lists.ozlabs.org
> >> Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard<
> >> hollis_blanchard at 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