Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2009 15:17:43 +0100 | | From | Ben Dooks <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform |
| |
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?
I was wondering what the pros/cons of having a system that takes a device tree and manufactures platform devices / etc from it? I think one of the cons is that if you change the platform device data, then you have not only the board definitions to change, but the of->platform code to modify as well...
-- Ben
Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.
-- 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/
|  |