From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alessandro Rubini Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] c_can_pci: generic module for c_can on PCI Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:30:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20120605133013.GA16108@mail.gnudd.com> References: <4FCE07EE.40003@pengutronix.de> <4FC135C6.5030206@grandegger.com> <1677842.Pq7naXsvrI@harkonnen> <3650428.HarNR9HfNF@harkonnen> <20120605131337.GA15432@mail.gnudd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bhupesh.sharma@st.com, federico.vaga@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, wg@grandegger.com, giancarlo.asnaghi@st.com, alan@linux.intel.com, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: mkl@pengutronix.de Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCE07EE.40003@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > I personally like the "pci device sets up a platform device" idea. Good. Than me or federico will submit a proposal. > My question is, is this considered being a good practise? I don't think there are many pci bridges around, but platform drivers exists just for that reason: to be instantiated when you know how the wiring ("platform") details. I.e., somebody registers the platform device associated to the driver. Sometimes the platform device is compiled in, sometimes it comes from the device tree. I think it can come from PCI as well. thanks /alessandro, apologizing with Bhupesh Sharma for his tone in the previous mail