[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D7CC4D0.90305@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:21:20 +0000
From: Andy Green <andy@...mcat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] PLATFORM: Introduce async platform_data attach
api
On 03/13/2011 12:53 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>>> This _really_ should just use the device tree stuff, that is what it is
>>>> for, please don't duplicate it here in a not-as-flexible way.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> @Andy: If it doesn't work for you for some reason, please let us know the
>>> usage case that is not covered (in detail).
>>
>> The device tree stuff does not yet exist in a workable way,
>> platform_data is established everywhere except USB bus. Device tree
>> brings in bootloader version as a dependency: this method doesn't.
>
> It is not the same device tree we are talking about. :-)
>
> I mean device hierarchy (and I guess Greg meant the same).
I see. Elsewhere on the previous thread people were proposing to use
New Shiny Device Tree, hence the confusion.
I am using the old style device tree to walk the device's parent path.
What were you guys actually suggesting to do differently via the device
tree then that's cleaner?
-Andy
--
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