[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <311C42C3-6544-4058-ABE9-F9FAE72DD5CA@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:45:42 +0300
From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
BenoƮt Coussno <b-cousson@...com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@...com>,
Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...cuitco.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pdev: Fix platform device resource linking
Hi Greg,
On Aug 6, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:53:40AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Platform device removal uncovered a number of problems with
>> the way resources are handled in the core platform code.
>>
>> Resources now form child/parent linkages and this requires
>> proper linking of the resources. On top of that the OF core
>> directly creates it's own platform devices. Simplify things
>> by providing helper functions that manage the linking properly.
>
> Ugh, the OF core shouldn't be creating platform devices. Well, yes, I
> know it does that today, but ick, ick, ick.
>
Yep, ick, ick, ick is the correct form.
>> Two functions are provided:
>>
>> platform_device_link_resources(), which links all the
>> linkable resources (if not already linked).
>>
>> and platform_device_unlink_resources(), which unlinks all the
>> resources.
>
> Why would anyone need to call this? I'm getting the feeling that OF
> should just have it's own bus of devices to handle this type of mess.
> ACPI is going through the same rewrite for this same type of problem
> (they did things differently.) I suggest you work with the ACPI
> developers to so the same thing they are, to solve it correctly for
> everyone.
>
It's the same problem really. Another bus type might not fly well.
The same device driver should be (in theory) be made to work unchanged
either on an OF/ACPI/Fex( :) ) setup.
What would it take to move all this into driver core?
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Regards
-- Pantelis
--
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