From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:40:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 13/18] ARM: ux500: Add ux500 PCM to DB8500 Device Tree
In-Reply-To: <5016389B.4020003@linaro.org>
References: <1343393162-11938-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <1343393162-11938-14-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20120729205001.GK4384@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <5016389B.4020003@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20120730134054.GC4468@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:32:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 29/07/12 21:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:45:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> >>+		pcm: ux500-pcm {
> >>+			compatible = "stericsson,ux500-pcm";
> >>+		};
> >>+

> >One of two things is wrong here.  Either you've not provided any
> >information about the hardware so the driver won't be able to work out
> >what to talk to or you've not provided any data so you're registering a
> >purely virtual Linux-internal device via the device tree.

> >Once more, the idea here is to describe the hardware not to dump Linux's
> >internal data structures into the device tree.

> We use it register the driver for probe()ing. In the same way we do
> for the PMU and Regulators. All three of which actually belong to a
> different hardware block. Do you know of a better way to register
> those devices?

You've not identified which of the two cases above we're in...  assuming
it's a virtal device look at how the DT bindings for the other platforms
are doing things.