[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090528142420.GD6805@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:24:20 +0200
From: Robert Schwebel <robert@...webel.de>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
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 Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> I was wondering what the pros/cons of having a system that takes a
> device tree and manufactures platform devices / etc from it? I think
> one of the cons is that if you change the platform device data, then
> you have not only the board definitions to change, but the of->platform
> code to modify as well...
I think a unification of both data structures would be much better than
having two of them ontop of each other.
rsc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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