From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] ARM: EXYNOS: Add drm-device node to the dtsi file Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:51:23 +0200 Message-ID: <2322047.YHar8WY1rI@flatron> References: <1348232397-2477-1-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com> <1348232397-2477-4-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com> <135e01cd9b88$aea81140$0bf833c0$@org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:45415 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751152Ab2I1Gv3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:51:29 -0400 Received: by weyt9 with SMTP id t9so1112235wey.19 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:51:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <135e01cd9b88$aea81140$0bf833c0$@org> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Kukjin Kim Cc: 'Leela Krishna Amudala' , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, inki.dae@samsung.com, jg1.han@samsung.com, thomas.abraham@linaro.org Hi, On Wednesday 26 of September 2012 10:46:01 Kukjin Kim wrote: > Please check below comments from Thomas Abraham and I agree with his > opinion. > > There cannot be a node that represents a virtual device. Device tree > should ideally describe the hardware but the above node does not > represent a hardware device. The creation of the platform device > instance for the above device should handled inside the kernel code. I don't tend to agree with this opinion. Is there any further reasoning behind it? Is it a current policy of the kernel that nodes should only represent real devices? Best regards, Tomasz Figa From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:51:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] ARM: EXYNOS: Add drm-device node to the dtsi file In-Reply-To: <135e01cd9b88$aea81140$0bf833c0$@org> References: <1348232397-2477-1-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com> <1348232397-2477-4-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com> <135e01cd9b88$aea81140$0bf833c0$@org> Message-ID: <2322047.YHar8WY1rI@flatron> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Wednesday 26 of September 2012 10:46:01 Kukjin Kim wrote: > Please check below comments from Thomas Abraham and I agree with his > opinion. > > There cannot be a node that represents a virtual device. Device tree > should ideally describe the hardware but the above node does not > represent a hardware device. The creation of the platform device > instance for the above device should handled inside the kernel code. I don't tend to agree with this opinion. Is there any further reasoning behind it? Is it a current policy of the kernel that nodes should only represent real devices? Best regards, Tomasz Figa