From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
jk@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Deprecating of_platform, the path from here...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:17:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200912112117.44022.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40912110844l5990d6fbh7c9c0928513b055d@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday 11 December 2009 16:44:32 Grant Likely wrote:
> platform users far outnumber of_platform users. I actually don't care
> which becomes the 'preferred' bus, just as long as one is chosen. It
> is easy to migrate features between them. When I look at the work
> required though, I think it is far more feasible to fold of_platform
> features into platform bus than it is to ask current platform users to
> migrate over to of_platform.
Yes, I think you have convinced me. For me the key argument is that
we can extend platform_bus to do everything that of_platform_bus
does today.
If we can automatically turn "reg" and "interrupt" properties into
resources for the platform_devices created from a device tree,
and add interfaces to platform_device to operate directly on properties
of the underlying device, I'm happy.
DMA address translation is something that will require some care
to get right with platform_device, and it's important that we come
up with a nice syntax to define properties for regular
platform_devices that do not come from a device tree.
> Now, if consensus can be reached among architecture maintainers to
> make of_platform the preferred approach, and to deprecate platform
> bus, then I'm all for it and I'll work towards it However, I
> personally don't think it will fly and so I'm not spending any effort
> on that direction.
Right.
Arnd <><
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-11 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-09 22:06 Deprecating of_platform, the path from here Grant Likely
2009-12-09 22:06 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 0:15 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 0:15 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 0:21 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 20:47 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 20:47 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 21:56 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 21:56 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 22:03 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 22:03 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-11 15:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-12-11 15:53 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2009-12-11 16:44 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-11 16:44 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-11 21:17 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2009-12-11 22:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-11 22:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 1:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 1:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 21:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 21:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 21:53 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 21:53 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200912112117.44022.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=jk@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.