Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)

Pantelis Antoniou
2012-11-13T19:11:46Z

Hi Mitch,

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:

> On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>>> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
>>> implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
>>
>> It was discussed earlier that capebus isn't actually a bus. It's simply
>> a collection of a bunch of pins from the SoC hooked up to connectors.
>> I'd agree that it's mis-named.
>>
>
> Nevertheless, to the extent that the set of pins is finite and
> well-defined, it should be possible to define a set of software
> interfaces to support the functionality represented by those pins.
>
> It might depend on the underlying SoC, but even so, it would still be
> best to encapsulate the interface set. I hear all these use cases that
> presuppose a wide variety of user skill sets. If one really wants to
> support such users well, it's important to define a coherent single
> point of interface.
>
>

That's what capebus is. Too bad there's such a fuss about the name.
Check out the thread from the start for the sordid details.

Regards

-- Pantelis