[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300828125.2402.300.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:08:45 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Cc: andy.green@...aro.org, Andy Green <andy@...mcat.com>,
Linux USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arnd@...db.de,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, roger.quadros@...ia.com,
greg@...ah.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Platform data for onboard USB assets
> Q(b) If yes, what 'key' is most suitable for identifying the right
> device
> to attach the data to ?
We already pointed out that in the case of soldered-in device, the
"path" as in the series of -physical- ports leading to the device is
going to be stable.
For anything else, there's no solution. If the device doesn't have a
unique ID, you are toast, period.
On the other hand, I still think platform_data suck big time. Grant made
some good points about the lack of proper typing for example. I believe
that a device-tree based approach is much better in the long run (and
more flexible) despite Andy odd quasi-religious aversion for it.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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