From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCHv6] mtd: gpio-nand: add device tree bindings Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:48:20 +0300 Message-ID: <1318600108.12351.130.camel@sauron> References: <1318374618-26573-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1318374618-26573-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+gldm-linux-mtd-36=gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jamie Iles Cc: Grant Likely , Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:10 +0100, Jamie Iles wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > +static const struct of_device_id gpio_nand_id_table[] = { > + { .compatible = "gpio-control-nand" }, > + {} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, gpio_nand_id_table); ... > +#else /* CONFIG_OF */ ... > +#endif /* CONFIG_OF */ I wonder, why it is either OF of platform data? What if I want my kernel to fall-back to platform data if device tree data is absent? What is the general policy? Sorry, I am not very well aware of the DT stuff. But off the top of my head, it is logical when things go like this: I have a kernel with working platform data, but I can change that dynamically by feeding it a device tree configuration. Hmm? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/