public inbox for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
To: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6] mtd: gpio-nand: add device tree bindings
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:04:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111015030415.GA8274@ponder.secretlab.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111014142149.GA25079@totoro>

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 03:21:49PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> 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.

No, Artem is correct.  It is *not* okay to break platform_data support
simply by turning on CONFIG_OF.  The driver must be able to support
both, and to choose its data source at runtime.

Essentially, turning on CONFIG_OF adds the ability to boot with a
device tree while still being able to boot on legacy platforms.

g.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-10-15  3:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-11 23:10 [PATCHv6] mtd: gpio-nand: add device tree bindings Jamie Iles
2011-10-14 13:48 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-10-14 14:21   ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-14 14:25     ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-10-14 14:43       ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-15  3:04     ` Grant Likely [this message]
2011-10-15  5:09       ` Jamie Iles

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111015030415.GA8274@ponder.secretlab.ca \
    --to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=jamie@jamieiles.com \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox