[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110331132328.GB2202@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:23:28 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>
Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hjk@...utronix.de, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uio/pdrv_genirq: Add OF support
> Maybe I misunderstand you, in my view it is the responsibility of <vendor>
> to create their DTS files to indicate they want <special-card1> to bind to
> generic-uio.
Device tree is a OS-neutral hardware description language. "generic-uio"
is neither OS-neutral nor a hardware description. devicetree.org has
more information about this.
> Our use-case is pretty clear, in FPGA-based systems it is common to create
> arbitrary devices that developers just want to control from userspace,
> with simple IRQ and IO capabilities (DMA can come later :). �They don't
> need to bind to other kernel APIs or subsystems, and don't want to invest
> in one-off kernel drivers that simply will never go upstream.
For that, the new_compatible-file would be suitable, I think.
> UIO is perfect, and simply tagging the device as generic-uio in the DTS is
> so simple, clean, and elegant.
Simple, yes (I do understand I wrote the first approach ;)) . Elegant,
not really, because it breaks core conventions of the device tree. For
your case it is a very conveniant hack, but it is still a hack.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists