[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZ5VFhrbONy=0K5MFh4e6BDFckq0yqzjQ2QkW9MgwKqBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:58:04 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
arnd@...db.de, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik
I2C driver
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
>
> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority.
Oh is that so.
Rob: do we have a clear consensus on this? Then we should document
it in Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt.
(That document isn't part of the binding I believe, so we could define
Linux-specific behaviours in it.)
I always thought it was the other way around, that pdata took priority.
Usecase: hardcoded bootloader passer erroneous DT to a platform.
No way out. What to do? Override with pdata.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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