Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 May 2009 15:13:55 -0400 | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform | From | Jon Smirl <> |
| |
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |