From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933714AbZE0T5v (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756950AbZE0T5m (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:42 -0400 Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net ([213.251.189.42]:56491 "HELO 42.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758708AbZE0T5l (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:41 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 399 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 27 May 2009 15:57:41 EDT Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:39:27 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Jon Smirl , Scott Wood , Peter Korsgaard , Robert Schwebel , devicetree-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Janboe Ye , Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform Message-ID: <20090527193927.GD30039@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1243408083.13460.14.camel@debian-nb> <20090527150527.GK6805@pengutronix.de> <87vdnm8sec.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <4A1D6901.2090508@freescale.com> <20090527175609.GB31861@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <4A1D8FBA.6040802@freescale.com> <9e4733910905271213k7f4b93e7i7e6f2af24d85f@mail.gmail.com> <20090527192116.GA31110@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20090527192116.GA31110@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11067596085741792179 X-Ovh-Remote: 213.251.161.87 (ns32433.ovh.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20:21 Wed 27 May , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > I'm not talking about platform specific code, I'm talking about code to > > > retrieve information about a device from the device tree.  There would not > > > be separate instances of this for "platforms X, Y and Z", just one > > > of_platform binding in each driver.  It's no different than having a > > > platform bus binding, except in the data structures used. > > > > > > But to restate, having external glue to create platform devices from the > > > device tree is fine if that's what you want to do.  We used to do that, but > > > it was a pain compared to keeping everything in one place.  Your experience > > > may differ. > > > > Could 'struct platform_device' and 'struct of_platform_device" be > > unified into a single structure? It's personal preference whether the > > internal representation of the hardware is done via a device tree or > > snippets of platform code, but do we need to have to different device > > types? > > That's a damned good question - platform devices have been around since > the dawn of the device model, so the real question which needs to be > asked is: what was the reason that of_platform_device created rather > than unifying it with the already provided platform_device ? I agree at 100% when you have to support the same driver for non OF and OF platform it's really a pain in the ass Best Regards, J.