[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57336397.4000401@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:53:43 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"Stephen Warren" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 13/14] dt-bindings: arm-gic: Add documentation for
Tegra210 AGIC
Hi Rob, Mark,
On 11/05/16 17:30, Rob Herring wrote:
> A platform driver for just gic-400 is wrong IMO until we have platform
> drivers for all interrupt controllers.
Yes, that is fine with me, but can we decide on whether the platform
driver should match "tegra210-agic" or the early driver should bail-out
if clocks/power-domains are present?
I am fine with either, but I think that Rob prefers the tegra210-agic
compat string and Mark prefers to bail-out of the early driver if
clocks/power-domains are present.
> Another reason to set OF_POPULATED flag is we are needlessly creating
> platform devices for irq controllers that will never have platform
> drivers. So I'd go with that approach.
Yes exactly, that was the point I was trying to make ;-)
Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists