[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 00/54] dm: Introduce new driver model uclasses

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:42:41AM -0700, York Sun wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/30/2015 11:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi York,
> > 
> > On 30 June 2015 at 10:08, York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> wrote:
> >> Simon,
> >>
> >> Does the dm force using device tree? I was reviewing a patch set regarding SPI
> >> and found OF_CONTROL has to be selected in order to get the driver model happy.
> >>
> >> My understanding of the driver model is both device tree and platform data are
> >> allowed, like Linux. Is that still true?
> > 
> > For buses you need device tree. I was rather hoping that we could
> > avoid platform data on platforms that have device tree. What is the
> > point?
> > 
> 
> Simon,
> 
> It happens on a platform not using device tree, but DM will be used.
> 
> I prefer DM to have both, rather than being forced to use device tree, unless we
> are going to enforce using device tree on all new platforms. Since device tree
> is still an option, I feel it is best to support platform data, like Linux
> drivers do.

Well, to what end?  My recollection is that in short, the kernel has
both since platform data predates device tree (and converting platform
data to device tree is still a thing that happens).  But we're trying to
skip that intermediate step.  Are there platforms where you do not plan
to use a device tree, ever?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20150630/2a48a2b6/attachment.sig>