On 20:21 Wed 27 May , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood <[email protected]> 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? > > That's a damned good question - platform devices have been around since > the dawn of the device model, so the real question which needs to be > asked is: what was the reason that of_platform_device created rather > than unifying it with the already provided platform_device ? I agree at 100%
when you have to support the same driver for non OF and OF platform it's really a pain in the ass Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
