linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090527193927.GD30039@game.jcrosoft.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 21:39:27 +0200
From:	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	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 20:21 Wed 27 May     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> That's a damned good question - platform devices have been around since
> the dawn of the device model, so the real question which needs to be
> asked is: what was the reason that of_platform_device created rather
> than unifying it with the already provided platform_device ?
I agree at 100%

when you have to support the same driver for non OF and OF platform it's
really a pain in the ass

Best Regards,
J.
--
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/