Re: [PATCHv6] mtd: gpio-nand: add device tree bindings

[Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>]

Hi Artem,

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:48:20PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:10 +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +static const struct of_device_id gpio_nand_id_table[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "gpio-control-nand" },
> > +	{}
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, gpio_nand_id_table);
> ...
> > +#else /* CONFIG_OF */
> ...
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_OF */
> 
> I wonder, why it is either OF of platform data? What if I want my kernel
> to fall-back to platform data if device tree data is absent? What is the
> general policy? Sorry, I am not very well aware of the DT stuff. But off

I think the general policy is that for device tree everything should be 
in the device tree.  There is a mechanism for device tree platforms to 
pass platform data too, but I believe this is more as a tool for 
migrating existing platforms to device tree.

Also, the device tree binding should be well documented - if the device 
is present in the tree it should have all of the required properties.  
If the device isn't there at all then it won't get registered.

> 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.

Jamie