[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40803069-e7dc-3dd6-ec7b-bec4308f381e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 12:57:50 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc: tiwai@...e.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, vkoul@...nel.org,
broonie@...nel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
jank@...ence.com,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
slawomir.blauciak@...el.com, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] soundwire: qcom: add sdw_master_device support
>> Add new device as a child of the platform device, following the
>> following hierarchy:
>>
>> platform_device
>> sdw_master_device
>> sdw_slave0
>
> Why can't we just remove the platform device layer here and add
> sdw_master_device directly?
>
> What is it stopping doing that?
The guidance from Greg was "no platform devices, unless you really are
on a platform bus (i.e. Device tree.)". We never discussed changing the
way the Device Tree parts are handled.
The main idea was to leave the parent (be it platform-device or PCI
device) alone and not add new attributes or references to it.
The scheme here is similar to I2C/SPI, you have a platform device
handled by the Device Tree baseline, and a driver create an
i2c_adapter/spi_controller/sdw_master_device.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists