[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121120070756.GM17774@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:07:56 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, ben-linux@...ff.org,
w.sang@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lenb@...nel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3 UPDATED] i2c / ACPI: add ACPI enumeration support
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:49:25PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I think the benefit here is that you can merely point
> .acpi_match_table at an acpi_device_id[] table, then use
> platform_get_resource() as a generic way to get resources, whether the
> platform device came from OF, ACPI, etc. The alternative would be to
> add, e.g., a PNP driver with a .probe() method that uses
> pnp_get_resource(). That's not very much code, but it is more, even
> if the .probe() method just calls a device registration function
> that's shared across bus types.
>
> That benefit seems like a great thing, and my question then is why
> wouldn't we just do it across the board and make platform devices for
> *all* ACPI devices without having the I2C and SPI special cases?
That wouldn't be any better than having a PNP or ACPI device. We must still
create the corresponding I2C or SPI device in order to have a driver that
can plug into I2C or SPI core.
--
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