lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 08:21:16PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > 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?
>
> That's a damned good question - platform devices have been around since
> the dawn of the device model, so the real question which needs to be
> asked is: what was the reason that of_platform_device created rather
> than unifying it with the already provided platform_device ?
>
> BTW, I can find no such struct "of_platform_device" in include/linux.
> Is it specific to each and every OF implementation?

They should be unified. I believe the problem was at the time
of_platform devices came into existence there was no arch-specific
field in the device structure that could be used to hold a reference
to the devtree node.

Since then, the fiddliness of doing the conversion has always just
outweighed the impetus to do so. The of_platform bus model is
conceptually completely broken, but in practice only slightly broken
for all common cases.

I've been meaning at several times to replace the of_platform bus
infrastructure with a system to traverse the OF tree and construct
platform devices (or other un-probeable bus devices, e.g. i2c) based
on a table of constructor functions. It's just always been edged out
by other work.

--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
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/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-28 05:09    [W:0.307 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site