From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de (metis.ext.pengutronix.de [92.198.50.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6F6B7D09 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:45:55 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:45:45 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: John Williams Subject: Re: UIO / of_genirq driver Message-ID: <20100128104545.GA3105@pengutronix.de> References: <1d3f23371001272313i62fc9158se4cd9173f196fb12@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UugvWAfsgieZRqgk" In-Reply-To: <1d3f23371001272313i62fc9158se4cd9173f196fb12@mail.gmail.com> Cc: gregkh@suse.de, devicetree-discuss , hjk@linutronix.de, Linux Kernel list , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, > I came across this thread/patchset from around June last year: >=20 > http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073086.html >=20 > 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=3D"generic-uio"). I agree with him on that. > I guess I have a couple of questions: >=20 > * 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, simi= lar to new_id for PCI/PCMCIA, e.g.: $ echo "commodore,c64" > /sys/bus/of_platform/drivers/of_uio_genirq/new_com= patible 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 challengi= ng 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 d= ue to other commitments. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkthatkACgkQD27XaX1/VRvjrACgketVU/GiUf+uHBeK1ACqDNbo xpwAoMw9nB8eMvfqMgCwl8PXG1TqgmXk =qPOC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--