Grant, > > Do you plan to have generic DT parsing to platform device > creation code or > > will this remain platform specific? > > I'm actively developing this. A while ago I decided I was not going > to port of_platform_bus_type bus to any new architectures because it > is effectively just platform_bus_type with a slightly different > matching scheme. So I wrote a patch that generates platform devices > from the device tree instead. > > However, since then I took on the task of removing > of_platform_bus_type entirely and just using platform_bus_type on ppc, > mb & sparc, so arm will be able to use the same code. The patches I > just pushed out to my experimental branch show my WIP code and how > both the versatile and omap platforms are modified to use the common > code. > > Word of warning though, this is highly experimental code and I cannot > promise it won't break spectacularly. >
I've updated to your latest tree and have MX51 working with DT. I've got a few issues with bus_id/name+id. Is your goal that existing platform drivers work unmodified? If so, the current <address>.<name> bus_id scheme doesn't really work. The platform matching code needs platform_device.name to be just a name without any instance id. I was thinking this would be the compatible field. There are also dependencies on the bus_id being name.id in the clock code for example. I was planning to use cell-index property for the id. How do you see adding platform_data to the devices working? Rob _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
