From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mach-ux500: add devicetree compat nodes
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:38:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EBD4F79.90302@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZrWW2jUYC0P7yY322YMdn9+4_NaGPhKtpGwR+e=F6+0A@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/11/2011 10:26 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2011 09:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>
>>> So - different .init_machine() calls, needed to simplify the board
>>> files as of now. (Patch from Lee Jones.)
>>
>> But ultimately I would expect that the init_machine calls to be the same
>> with a DT based machine. This goes back to do we add DT to existing
>> boards or create a new clean DT machine and add to it as boards are
>> converted?
>
> Yes that should be the ultimate goal. So the current per-board
> init functions register the I2C, MMC (SDI), SPI, UART and
> regulator devices etc. So then these drivers need to be patched to
> get their board/platform data from DT first.
>
> In that case we should hold this patch off and only keep it for
> internal testing until all necessary drivers are ready and patched
> so we can replace all board files with a single DT-based one,
> instead of this compromise solution.
>
I would not hold off. You only need to have a minimal set that's enough
to boot.
> Is this what everybody else does?
That was the the consensus in Budapest in May. It's much cleaner to
start with a new board file and then ultimately just delete the old
ones. But it's really up to the board/SOC maintainer.
Rob
> Thanks,
> Linus Walleij
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
Nicolas.Pitre.nicolas.pitre-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Grant.Likely.grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach-ux500: add devicetree compat nodes
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:38:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EBD4F79.90302@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZrWW2jUYC0P7yY322YMdn9+4_NaGPhKtpGwR+e=F6+0A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On 11/11/2011 10:26 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2011 09:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>
>>> So - different .init_machine() calls, needed to simplify the board
>>> files as of now. (Patch from Lee Jones.)
>>
>> But ultimately I would expect that the init_machine calls to be the same
>> with a DT based machine. This goes back to do we add DT to existing
>> boards or create a new clean DT machine and add to it as boards are
>> converted?
>
> Yes that should be the ultimate goal. So the current per-board
> init functions register the I2C, MMC (SDI), SPI, UART and
> regulator devices etc. So then these drivers need to be patched to
> get their board/platform data from DT first.
>
> In that case we should hold this patch off and only keep it for
> internal testing until all necessary drivers are ready and patched
> so we can replace all board files with a single DT-based one,
> instead of this compromise solution.
>
I would not hold off. You only need to have a minimal set that's enough
to boot.
> Is this what everybody else does?
That was the the consensus in Budapest in May. It's much cleaner to
start with a new board file and then ultimately just delete the old
ones. But it's really up to the board/SOC maintainer.
Rob
> Thanks,
> Linus Walleij
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-11 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-11 15:05 [PATCH] mach-ux500: add devicetree compat nodes Niklas Hernaeus
2011-11-11 15:05 ` Niklas Hernaeus
2011-11-11 15:17 ` Rob Herring
2011-11-11 15:17 ` Rob Herring
2011-11-11 15:59 ` Linus Walleij
2011-11-11 15:59 ` Linus Walleij
2011-11-11 16:13 ` Rob Herring
2011-11-11 16:13 ` Rob Herring
2011-11-11 16:26 ` Linus Walleij
2011-11-11 16:26 ` Linus Walleij
2011-11-11 16:38 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2011-11-11 16:38 ` Rob Herring
2011-11-11 17:00 ` Linus Walleij
2011-11-11 17:00 ` Linus Walleij
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-11 15:17 Niklas Hernaeus
2011-11-11 15:17 ` Niklas Hernaeus
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=4EBD4F79.90302@gmail.com \
--to=robherring2@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.