From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] gpio: Add support for unified device properties interface Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:37:46 +0300 Message-ID: <1412696266.7701.5.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1410868367-11056-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <2809308.3y5s7TV5Ip@wuerfel> <6744174.JquHLt80n3@wuerfel> <20140926032131.GC40523@vmdeb7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Darren Hart , Len Brown , Arnd Bergmann , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , David Woodhouse , Mika Westerberg , Grant Likely , Mark Rutland , ACPI Devel Maling List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alexandre Courbot , Dmitry Torokhov , Bryan Wu , Lee Jones , Aaron Lu List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 15:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:12:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > So as Mika has pointed out, LEDs aren't the only ones affected. Several drivers > > will need to walk through non-device child nodes, and it seems to me that having > > a firmware-independent mechanism to do so benefits the drivers by both making > > them smaller and by increasing the reusability of new drivers and drivers > > updated to use the new API across platforms. > > In a recent round of reviews, for the OF case, that led to drivers > which used device_initcall() without being a module, getting a match > and handle to the parent device, and then walking over the nodes > and instantiating child objects (Linux devices usually) in the process. > > It was done as a response to the remark from Rob Herring that > we were modeling things in the device tree as devices when they > really weren't, we were just doing it that way because it fits the > Linux device model and it's easier. > > So we have that case too. > > The question is if it's anything close to generalizable. > > > Grant, Linus W? Thoughts? > > I'm uncertain on the whole subject, I called on the others > because of that... > > For a while I had Andy Schevenko patch the GPIO and > SFI core too, but it timed out due to no response from Len > Brown. (Maybe I should just merge that stuff!) Do you (Intel) also > want to unify the Medfield SFI thing into this or have you > given up on it? I think SFI is quite outdated stuff, though I have still Medfield device close to me. I don't think there will be any new platform with SFI (on the other hand we never know :-) ). Thus, my opinion you may go ahead without worrying about SFI. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy