[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e4733910905271213k7f4b93e7i7e6f2af24d85f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:13:55 -0400
From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@...gutronix.de>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...abs.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
Janboe Ye <yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote:
> I'm not talking about platform specific code, I'm talking about code to
> retrieve information about a device from the device tree. There would not
> be separate instances of this for "platforms X, Y and Z", just one
> of_platform binding in each driver. It's no different than having a
> platform bus binding, except in the data structures used.
>
> But to restate, having external glue to create platform devices from the
> device tree is fine if that's what you want to do. We used to do that, but
> it was a pain compared to keeping everything in one place. Your experience
> may differ.
Could 'struct platform_device' and 'struct of_platform_device" be
unified into a single structure? It's personal preference whether the
internal representation of the hardware is done via a device tree or
snippets of platform code, but do we need to have to different device
types?
--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@...il.com
--
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