From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1REihx-00064T-1x for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:25:57 +0000 Received: by wwf10 with SMTP id 10so1739492wwf.0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCHv6] mtd: gpio-nand: add device tree bindings From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Jamie Iles Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:25:21 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20111014142149.GA25079@totoro> References: <1318374618-26573-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <1318600108.12351.130.camel@sauron> <20111014142149.GA25079@totoro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1318602329.12351.143.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Grant Likely , Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 15:21 +0100, Jamie Iles wrote: > > 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? > > I think in general platform data and device tree should be mutually > exclusive. OK, but would you please confirm this by pointing to some docs or discussions, or may be people from devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org could confirm that? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy