* Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:32 +0200, Thierry Reding > <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Grant Likely wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:24:18 +0200, Thierry Reding > > > <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > > > +struct adnp_platform_data { > > > > + unsigned gpio_base; > > > > + unsigned nr_gpios; > > > > + int irq_base; > > > > + const char *const *names; > > > > +}; > > > > > > From the start this is a DT enabled driver. There should be no reason > > > to also include platform_data support. > > > > I thought it might be a good idea to support both for now. There have been > > some discussions that the device tree should be just an alternative source > > for platform data, the main argument being that platform data could be used > > to overwrite data provided via DT. > > Unless you have an *actual* user of platform_data, don't borrow > trouble by adding it.
If I make the driver DT-only I should probably add a "select OF" to it's Kconfig entry, right? Or should it rather be "depends on OF"? Thierry
pgpbR41aTE5bJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
