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.
next prev 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