From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
To: John Williams <john.williams@petalogix.com>
Cc: gregkh@suse.de,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
hjk@linutronix.de,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: UIO / of_genirq driver
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:45:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100128104545.GA3105@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d3f23371001272313i62fc9158se4cd9173f196fb12@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2034 bytes --]
John,
> I came across this thread/patchset from around June last year:
>
> http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073086.html
>
> where Wolfgang proposed a generic OF-driven UIO driver. The
Wolfram, please ;)
> discussion seemed to stall after Grant Likely indicated he didn't like
> the use of a linux-specific compatible binding in the device tree
> (compatible="generic-uio").
I agree with him on that.
> I guess I have a couple of questions:
>
> * did this patchset go anywhere? I've been using it here the last
> few days and it works great.
The idea was to create a mechanism to instantiate bindings at runtime, similar
to new_id for PCI/PCMCIA, e.g.:
$ echo "commodore,c64" > /sys/bus/of_platform/drivers/of_uio_genirq/new_compatible
so we don't have to maintain an ever growing list of hardcoded
compatible-properties for those UIO-devices.
> * Is there a better way to handle the OF bindings for this sort of thing?
Run-time instantiation might help in a couple of other cases; still, in the
progress of unifying/extending the OF-support, it was discussed if it was
possible to get rid of of_platform entirely. It looks like a very challenging
task, but seems to be favoured designwise (at least I do).
> However, the device-tree guys complain whenever anyone tries to encode
> anything non-hardware related into the DTS itself.
Well, if I get a device tree including special properties for Linux and BSD and
whatever may follow, that could get quite confusing :)
> I guess I'd like to just open up a discussion, see if there's been any
> progress towards a general solution.
I decided to wait for the outcome of the of_platform-removal-idea. Though, I
have to admit that in the last weeks I haven't followed of-related things due
to other commitments.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-28 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 7:13 UIO / of_genirq driver John Williams
2010-01-28 10:45 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2010-12-03 15:43 ` Stefan Roese
2010-12-03 15:50 ` Wolfram Sang
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=20100128104545.GA3105@pengutronix.de \
--to=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hjk@linutronix.de \
--cc=john.williams@petalogix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).