Hi Greg, > Am 18.08.2016 um 12:57 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman > <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:54:15PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> Hi Pavel, >> >>> Am 18.08.2016 um 12:47 schrieb Pavel Machek <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thereof 4 files, ~260 changes w/o gps demo and documentation/bindings. >>> >>> So what do you use for the serial devices? platform_device was vetoed >>> for that purpose by Greg. >> >> device tree? > > No.
? Sorry, but each time Pavel jumps in, he just copies half of a statement and any reply gets misunderstood. I did not even mention platform_device, still you disagree to device tree for the *slave driver*? > > This patchset from Rob is the way I have been saying it should be done > for years now. Yes, a "bus" takes up more boilerplate code (blame me > for that), but overall, it makes the drivers simpler, Sorry, but I don't see how Rob's approach makes it simpler to write a device driver than our original proposal, which btw is also sort of a bus and I see only some implementation differences. Except that IMHO Rob's approach lacks functions we need (which maybe can added). > and fits into the > rest of the kernel driver/device model much better. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
