From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752823AbdHKPg4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:36:56 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46012 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752631AbdHKPgz (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:36:55 -0400 Cc: Sudeep Holla , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Andy Gross , Jens Wiklander Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] firmware: of: populate /firmware/ node during init To: Arnd Bergmann References: <1502458237-1683-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1502458237-1683-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <01aa3488-944e-b98c-65a4-7ec1b31af208@arm.com> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:37:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/08/17 15:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Since "/firmware" does not have its own "compatible" property as it's >> just collection of nodes representing firmware interface, it's sub-nodes >> are not populated during system initialization. >> >> Currently different firmware drivers search the /firmware/ node and >> populate the sub-node devices selectively. Instead we can populate >> the /firmware/ node during init to avoid more drivers continuing to >> populate the devices selectively. >> >> This patch adds initcall to achieve the same. > > Hmm, I'm a bit skeptical whether representing anything under /firmware > as a platform device is a good idea. Having a more structured way to > probe those seems like a good idea, but maybe a different subsystem > would be more appropriate. > Just a vague thought: if we go to an extent of creating a bus to deal with these, won't we need to be more formal and create compatible for that ? If we do that, then how do we support existing device trees ? Again we are back to the same point but I do agree with your views. > I do realize that a 'platform_device' has become a rather generic abstraction > for almost anything, but at some point we might want to draw the line > of what is a platform_device. > As Rob pointed out it's already being handled as platform_devices in many cases and my aim was just to reduce the duplication. -- Regards, Sudeep