From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from metis.extern.pengutronix.de (metis.extern.pengutronix.de [83.236.181.26]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43958DDDFA for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:33:43 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:33:37 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: SPI devices and OF Message-ID: <20070405083337.GB9910@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070404110916.GA9910@localhost.localdomain> <4850DC60-A560-4A38-8416-ADA776B69509@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4850DC60-A560-4A38-8416-ADA776B69509@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 11:34:11AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > > I don't think this is a good idea for SPI devices. The effort vs > reward isn't worth it. The simple fact that the 'chip select' > mechanism ends up being board specific is too much of a pain to > figure out how to deal with in the device tree. I think its ok if we > put information about the controller in the tree, but trying to do > the devices as well at this point doesn't seem like its much of a win. It would be much easier to provide some board specific functions which registers the spi devices instead of doing it in the device tree. But there is one problem with that: If there is more than one spi controller in the tree, how do you differentiate them? Sascha