From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (fed1rmmtao01.cox.net [68.230.241.38]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0D62BDB4 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:42:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:42:50 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: "Mark A. Greer" Message-ID: <20041008134250.A15724@home.com> References: <4165E52E.60908@waitefamily.us> <20041008111345.GA23212@linux-mips.org> <1097234203.318.89.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20041008122633.C17999@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <4166D5E7.8080209@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4166D5E7.8080209@mvista.com>; from mgreer@mvista.com on Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:01:11AM -0700 Cc: Brian Waite , lachwani@pmc-sierra.com, Ralf Baechle , mdharm@momenco.com, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org, sjhill@realitydiluted.com, David Woodhouse , rabeeh@galileo.co.il, Russell King Subject: Re: OCP vs. platform_device (was Marvell 64360/64340 GigE driver for MIPS and PPC....) List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:01:11AM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > Moving to a wider PPC audience... > > Mark > -- > > Russell King wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:16:43PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > >>On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 13:13 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I was already considering to implement something like OCP for MIPS also. > >>>Since it already exists on PPC I instead would suggest to move > >>>arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c into generic code, something like drivers/ocp/ > >>>maybe? > >>> > >>> > >>Fine... but if you're doing that instead of extending platform_device to > >>meet your needs, make sure you remove platform_device while you're at it > >>and convert its users to OCP. > >> > >> > > > >There are a lot of users of platform devices, and this now includes > >virtually everything in the input layer. This would be a very large > >amount of work to rip out platform devices. > >So I think ripping out platform devices and throwing in something > >which is very different is a backwards step. As I've mentioned a couple time now on #mklinux, we should be moving to platform_device on PPC. When I moved OCP forward from 2.4 it was because a bunch of work was done to fix it up there by BenH and the 4xx stuff had been using it for a long time before platform_device was around. There's a bunch of "backend" type info that is PPC subarch specific that is encoded in the .additions field of the OCP defs that can be moved to the platform_data field. That's really where most of the important stuff for OCP is at. We really just need somebody with time to convert all the subarches to add platform_devices and drivers to gather info from them. I may or may not have time to accomplish this myself in the near future. The point here is that I'm 100% behind converting from ocp_device to platform_device as long as whoever does it preserves the rest of the functionality (which should mostly can accomplished by moving the additions info to platform_data. Maybe it's only 4xx that needs this so other PPC subarches can convert possibly with a little less work. -Matt