From: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
To: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator drivers
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:28:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120606202833.GA11202@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FCEE5DA.7090403@ti.com>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 10:38:42AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:46 PM, David Collins wrote:
> >In the long term, this problem should go away of its own accord. However,
> >in the short term, many systems are converting over to using device tree.
> > Therefore, we are left with a situation currently where some regulator
> >consumer drivers are being probed via device tree and some are being
> >probed via board file devices within a single platform.
>
> Is this a situation you are facing in your mainline kernel or internal
> trees? What you explain would need you to work with hybrid board files
> with some devices created through device tree and some others statically
> from the board file in the kernel, and that approach was already shot
> down as unacceptable.
As I understand, this is something being done on our internal kernel.
I don't think this really applies to the mainline kernel, since none
of these transitionary drivers are going into the upstream kernel
without being made to work with device tree.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: davidb@codeaurora.org (David Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator drivers
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:28:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120606202833.GA11202@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FCEE5DA.7090403@ti.com>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 10:38:42AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:46 PM, David Collins wrote:
> >In the long term, this problem should go away of its own accord. However,
> >in the short term, many systems are converting over to using device tree.
> > Therefore, we are left with a situation currently where some regulator
> >consumer drivers are being probed via device tree and some are being
> >probed via board file devices within a single platform.
>
> Is this a situation you are facing in your mainline kernel or internal
> trees? What you explain would need you to work with hybrid board files
> with some devices created through device tree and some others statically
> from the board file in the kernel, and that approach was already shot
> down as unacceptable.
As I understand, this is something being done on our internal kernel.
I don't think this really applies to the mainline kernel, since none
of these transitionary drivers are going into the upstream kernel
without being made to work with device tree.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-06 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-05 16:16 Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator drivers David Collins
2012-06-05 16:16 ` David Collins
2012-06-05 16:22 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 16:22 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-06 5:08 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-06-06 5:08 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-06-06 20:28 ` David Brown [this message]
2012-06-06 20:28 ` David Brown
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=20120606202833.GA11202@codeaurora.org \
--to=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@ti.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
/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.