[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5044C82E.5060207@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:09:34 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik
I2C driver
On 09/03/2012 09:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com> wrote:
>> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, that's wrong. If platform data is specified, it overrides DT, so
>> that if the DT needs any fixup, it can be provided using platform data.
>
> Thanks Stephen, now there are two of us saying this, Lee please
> follow this design pattern.
>
> (Unless Rob/Grant start shouting counter-orders...)
Ideally, you only use DT or platform_data and you override DT with a new
DTB. Hopefully we can ultimately remove platform_data or all but parts
that can't be described in DT (i.e. function callouts).
But if you are handling both, then I agree that platform_data should
override DT.
Rob
--
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