Re: Board level compatibility matching

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:25AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 8/1/08, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:01AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >  > On 7/31/08, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >  > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06:20PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >  > >  > On 7/31/08, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
[snip]
> >  > Why does the fake fabric device need to be in the device tree? Can't
> >  > we just dynamically create it as part of the boot process?
> >
> >
> > Um.. yes.. that would be exactly what instantiating it from the
> >  platform code does.
> 
> Platform devices are missing the compatible chain process. If we do
> this with platform drivers the boot code creates a 'fabric' device
> then I'll have to ensure that my board-fabric driver gets probed
> before default-fabric because they both want to bind to the fabric
> device.

If you need a board-specific fabric driver, the board platform code
shouldn't be instantiating the generic fabric driver.  Given the board
specific driver a different name...

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson