2011/6/3 Grant Likely <[email protected]> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:07:02PM +0800, Barry Song wrote: > > 2011/6/2 Grant Likely <[email protected]>: > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Barry Song <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 2011/5/28 John Bonesio <[email protected]>: > > >>> This patch makes it so the top level audio card is initialized from the > > >>> device > > >>> tree. This is just the first step getting the audio complex of devices > > >>> iniialized from device tree nodes. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: John Bonesio<[email protected]> > > >>> --- > > >>> > > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts | 4 +++ > > >>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c | 3 ++ > > >>> sound/soc/tegra/harmony.c | 45 > > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > >>> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts > > >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts > > >>> index 05521a5..217a7f0 100644 > > >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts > > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts > > >>> @@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ > > >>> clock-frequency = <400000>; > > >>> }; > > >>> > > >>> + harmony_audio: audio_card { > > >>> + compatible = "nvidia,harmony-audio"; > > >>> + }; > > >>> + > > >>> serial@70006300 { > > >>> status = "ok"; > > >>> clock-frequency = < 216000000 >; > > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c > > >>> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c > > >>> index c498e84..a569ad9 100644 > > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c > > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c > > >>> @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ static struct platform_device *tegra250_devices[] > > >>> __initdata = { > > >>> &tegra_i2c_device2, > > >>> &tegra_i2c_device3, > > >>> &tegra_i2c_device4, > > >>> + &tegra_i2s_device1, > > >>> + &tegra_das_device, > > >>> + &tegra_pcm_device, > > >> > > >> i am thinking whether platform_device should be created by > > >> of_platform_device_create after scanning device tree, but not by > > >> hard-code? looks like the two patches are only trying to let device > > >> tree deliver gpio to drivers? > > > > > > Can you please restate your question? I don't think I understand what > > > you are trying to ask. > > > > i mean we don't need to have this platform device registerred by the > > old way here. we may get it by matching information in dts and delete > > all platform_device and related codes in arch/arm. For example: > > Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, it is ultimately the goal to register > all the device from data in the device tree, but we're taking things > one step at a time. For this series, it is expedient to register the > on-chip devices, and to move to dynamic registration later. > > Right now we can't do dynamic registration for on-chip devices in a > lot of cases because we don't have the infrastructure to hook up the > associated struct clks. Arnd has required me to use device tree in our new SoC for the coming upstream. so i am trying to define a property like clock = "uart" in dts. then in drivers, i get this string by: clk = of_get_property(np, "clock", NULL); then request this clock by clk_get().
it does work for the moment, but maybe is not what you like :-) > > g. > > _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
