[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjMH4rvSaUaV0LhnWy1oF4xumTCLN=-srYmfdK@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:36:36 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: andy.green@...aro.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Linux USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> No, that is not the plan. The platform data is well-established
> for deeply embedded systems (blackfin, arm-nommu, mips32, ...) where you
> never want to build a kernel for multiple boards anyway. We also
> have ways to generate platform_data from the device tree properties
> to allow the same driver to be used by systems with or without
> full device trees, and we have the fragments I mentioned that work
> in the opposite way.
Not actually true. We have drivers that can use both platform_data
and device tree data, and for platform devices the resource table is
automatically populated with irqs and register ranges, but
platform_data is driver specific which prevents any automatic
translation.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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