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 ? BTW, I can find no such struct "of_platform_device" in include/linux. Is it specific to each and every OF implementation? _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
