[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAALWOA_7QvtDeNZjXTwbT10MeWJ5wF776mENbX5w1DZHDNVVhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:43:13 +0100
From: Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@...il.com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
Cc: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, nsekhar@...com,
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, nsaulnier@...com,
jreeder@...com, m-karicheri2@...com, woods.technical@...il.com,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...il.com>, dan@...p.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add TI PRUSS bindings
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:08, Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> wrote:
> The beagleboard community is a primary user of this driver and we need to
> find a solution so that PRUSS is usable either via remoteproc or via UIO.
While being able to switch drivers without changing the DT by forcibly
binding a different driver would definitely be a nice feature, and
would have been possible with the older remoteproc-pru bindings, I
think it's a stretch to say this "needs" a solution. Right now, in
practice, selection between uio-pruss and remoteproc-pru is done
simply by modifying the device tree appropriately (typically by having
u-boot apply an overlay to the DT), and I don't think anyone views
this as unduly burdensome?
Matthijs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists