From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:09:34 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver In-Reply-To: References: <1345734087-21803-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1345734087-21803-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120831112258.GA2624@pengutronix.de> <20120831122323.GC5962@gmail.com> <20120903094448.GB11780@pengutronix.de> <20120903100656.GC5782@gmail.com> <5044BFD1.10708@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <5044C82E.5060207@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/03/2012 09:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> >>>> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT. >>>> >>>> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority. >> >> No, that's wrong. If platform data is specified, it overrides DT, so >> that if the DT needs any fixup, it can be provided using platform data. > > Thanks Stephen, now there are two of us saying this, Lee please > follow this design pattern. > > (Unless Rob/Grant start shouting counter-orders...) Ideally, you only use DT or platform_data and you override DT with a new DTB. Hopefully we can ultimately remove platform_data or all but parts that can't be described in DT (i.e. function callouts). But if you are handling both, then I agree that platform_data should override DT. Rob