[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200310011048.CDE1C803087C@mail.baikalelectronics.ru>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 04:09:57 +0300
From: Sergey Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the
trivial-devices bindings
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 07:56:51AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:48 AM <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> >
> > From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
> >
> > Indeed there are a log of trivial devices amongst platform controllers,
> > IP-blocks, etc. If they satisfy the trivial devices bindings requirements
> > like consisting of a compatible field, an address and possibly an interrupt
> > line why not having them in the generic trivial-devices bindings file?
>
> NAK.
>
> Do you have some documentation on what a platform bus is? Last I
> checked, that's a Linux thing.
>
> If anything, we'd move toward getting rid of trivial-devices.yaml. For
> example, I'd like to start defining the node name which wouldn't work
> for trivial-devices.yaml unless we split by class.
>
> Rob
Hello Rob,
Understood. I thought the trivial-devices bindings was to collect all
the devices with simple bindings, but it turns out to be a stub for
devices, which just aren't described by a dedicated bindings file.
I'll resubmit the v2 version with no changes to the trivial-devices.yaml,
but with CDMM/CPC dt-nodes having yaml-based bindings.
Regards,
-Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists