[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090527.132827.65331718.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: plagnioj@...osoft.com
Cc: linux@....linux.org.uk, jonsmirl@...il.com,
scottwood@...escale.com, jacmet@...site.dk,
r.schwebel@...gutronix.de, devicetree-discuss@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com,
timur@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:39:27 +0200
> when you have to support the same driver for non OF and OF platform it's
> really a pain in the ass
We could embed the platform_device object into the of_platform_device
structure, it's just an implementation issue.
But more to the point, I can tell you that anything platform_device
does can be implemented in terms of of_platform_device but the
opposite is not true.
Actually, I kind of appreciate the existence of both kinds of objects.
When you're instantiating LEDs or similar small devices on a MDIO
bus, and the LED driver has to work on OF and non-OF platforms,
I see nothing wrong with using platform devices for instantiation.
And I've done this myself for system LED devices on sparc64 boxes.
--
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