From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Schwebel Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:24:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20090528142420.GD6805@pengutronix.de> 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> <20090528141743.GA16199@trinity.fluff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528141743.GA16199@trinity.fluff.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Dooks Cc: Jon Smirl , Scott Wood , Russell King , 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 Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > I was wondering what the pros/cons of having a system that takes a > device tree and manufactures platform devices / etc from it? I think > one of the cons is that if you change the platform device data, then > you have not only the board definitions to change, but the of->platform > code to modify as well... I think a unification of both data structures would be much better than having two of them ontop of each other. rsc -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |