From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932482AbZE0TOG (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:14:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759442AbZE0TNz (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:13:55 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f190.google.com ([209.85.221.190]:48352 "EHLO mail-qy0-f190.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755555AbZE0TNz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 15:13:55 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p9fKAfBHkVWC9VJNqyjFGlWUOI3E7tlKDNKhbb37b81jjlpV9QLi/wgq3qz32dNeA4 uo2Nx+GG2pMLTdkiDcHK01j06PEKGJ1j7S7pPfQM2Ta7DKF+oZnBjFq1iNuZ1TUTaoEH xrobG8jlqxMpX8dvDKSC6Tl5WEhmEyFOQFekI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A1D8FBA.6040802@freescale.com> 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> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: <9e4733910905271213k7f4b93e7i7e6f2af24d85f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform From: Jon Smirl To: Scott Wood Cc: Russell King , Peter Korsgaard , Robert Schwebel , devicetree-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Janboe Ye , Timur Tabi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com