[PATCH v5 00/23]

[moinejf@free.fr (Jean-Francois Moine)]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 19:15:05 +0000
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> In which case, it may be better to reorder the remaining patches such
> that the DT changes are at the very end - which means we can still
> benefit from the rest of the patches if the DT solution remains an
> open question.
> 
> We do have another option now that my generic component support is in
> mainline (merged during this window), which should result in a much
> cleaner solution.  If we convert TDA998x to a component, armada DRM
> to a component master (and same for other tda998x users) then we don't
> need the drm_encoder_slave stuff - all that goes away since it's no
> longer necessary.
> 
> We also solve this problem as well - because we're then not messing
> around with working out if there's a DT node present: the TDA998x
> device must pre-exist.  For non-DT setups, this can be done when
> the I2C bus is created - devices on it would be created using the
> standard mechanisms already present via the i2c_board_data array.
> For DT setups, the devices are created by parsing the I2C bus node
> in DT.
> 
> Both cases result in a component being registered upon invocation of
> tda998x_probe(), and removal of the component when tda998x_remove()
> is called.  The tda998x driver becomes a standard I2C driver.
> 
> This is something I've been intending to look at now that the component
> stuff is in place - as I said previously when the questions around DT
> and Armada DRM were first posed, we need to solve these issues in a
> generic way first, rather than hacking around them.

Agree. I was looking in the same direction...

-- 
Ken ar c'henta?	|	      ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef		|		http://moinejf.free.fr/