[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:28:33 -0700
From: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
To: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator
drivers
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 10:38:42AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:46 PM, David Collins wrote:
> >In the long term, this problem should go away of its own accord. However,
> >in the short term, many systems are converting over to using device tree.
> > Therefore, we are left with a situation currently where some regulator
> >consumer drivers are being probed via device tree and some are being
> >probed via board file devices within a single platform.
>
> Is this a situation you are facing in your mainline kernel or internal
> trees? What you explain would need you to work with hybrid board files
> with some devices created through device tree and some others statically
> from the board file in the kernel, and that approach was already shot
> down as unacceptable.
As I understand, this is something being done on our internal kernel.
I don't think this really applies to the mainline kernel, since none
of these transitionary drivers are going into the upstream kernel
without being made to work with device tree.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists