From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:21:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20090527192116.GA31110@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1243408083.13460.14.camel@debian-nb> <20090527150527.GK6805@pengutronix.de> <87vdnm8sec.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <4A1D6901.2090508@freescale.com> <20090527175609.GB31861@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <4A1D8FBA.6040802@freescale.com> <9e4733910905271213k7f4b93e7i7e6f2af24d85f@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9e4733910905271213k7f4b93e7i7e6f2af24d85f@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.arm.linux.org.uk Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.arm.linux.org.uk To: Jon Smirl Cc: Scott Wood , Peter Korsgaard , Robert Schwebel , devicetree-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Janboe Ye , Timur Tabi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood wro= te: > > I'm not talking about platform specific code, I'm talking about code to > > retrieve information about a device from the device tree. =A0There woul= d not > > be separate instances of this for "platforms X, Y and Z", just one > > of_platform binding in each driver. =A0It's no different than having a > > platform bus binding, except in the data structures used. > > > > But to restate, having external glue to create platform devices from the > > device tree is fine if that's what you want to do. =A0We used to do tha= t, but > > it was a pain compared to keeping everything in one place. =A0Your expe= rience > > may differ. > = > Could 'struct platform_device' and 'struct of_platform_device" be > unified into a single structure? It's personal preference whether the > internal representation of the hardware is done via a device tree or > snippets of platform code, but do we need to have to different device > types? That's a damned good question - platform devices have been around since the dawn of the device model, so the real question which needs to be asked is: what was the reason that of_platform_device created rather than unifying it with the already provided platform_device ? BTW, I can find no such struct "of_platform_device" in include/linux. Is it specific to each and every OF implementation? ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel FAQ: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php Etiquette: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php