[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090527203115.GB16219@game.jcrosoft.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:31:15 +0200
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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
On 13:28 Wed 27 May , David Miller wrote:
> 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.
This is one of the problem I face not so long ago when I want to the boot
count limit functionnality which is only availlble for of platform
That's why I think having a simplest way to have driver availlable on the
twice platform is important. It will be a win-win at the end
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists