On 06/01/2011 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
Shouldn't the hierarchy in linux reflect the h/w? It seems a bit pointless
to me to create a device just to create another device. amba_bus is already
a bit strange in that it is not really a bus type, but a certain class of
peripherals.
I'd like to hear Grant's thoughts on this.
AMBA and platform_devices are "special" in that they don't have
requirements on their parent device. I see absolutely zero issue with
having platform_device and amba_device as siblings.
Hmm, if we accept that platform and AMBA devices are just different from
all the others, maybe we can do a simpler solution and just hardcode that
difference in the of_platform_bus_create function. It probably doesn't
hurt if we grow a handful of these at most, as long as we wouldn't add
code for a lot of different bus types to the common probing function.
Arnd
The simplest solutions are usually the best. With that, the 2nd patch
becomes:
diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
index 9b785be..6955932 100644
--- a/drivers/of/platform.c
+++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <linux/of_irq.h>
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/amba/bus.h>
static int of_dev_node_match(struct device *dev, void *data)
{
@@ -234,6 +235,11 @@ static int of_platform_bus_create(struct
device_node *bus,
return 0;
}
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(bus, "arm,amba-device")) {
+ of_amba_device_create(bus, parent);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
dev = of_platform_device_create(bus, NULL, parent);
if (!dev || !of_match_node(matches, bus))
return 0;
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
