[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160518170105.GA4897@rob-hp-laptop>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:01:05 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@...ivetech.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] uio: introduce devicetree bindings for
uio_dmem_genirq
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22:19AM +0200, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@...ivetech.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/uio/uio_dmem_genirq.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/uio/uio_dmem_genirq.txt
DT describes h/w. UIO is not a h/w block, so this does not belong in DT.
A UIO vs. kernel driver is purely a kernel decision which shouldn't
require a DT change.
The properties should be part of match data for a compatible string that
needs them set. Or if they can be defined in a way that is actually a
property of the h/w, then it would be acceptible. You'd still need to
define compatible strings that the properties apply to.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists