On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:25AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 8/1/08, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:01AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > On 7/31/08, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06:20PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > > > On 7/31/08, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Why does the fake fabric device need to be in the device tree? Can't
> > > we just dynamically create it as part of the boot process?
> >
> >
> > Um.. yes.. that would be exactly what instantiating it from the
> > platform code does.
>
> Platform devices are missing the compatible chain process. If we do
> this with platform drivers the boot code creates a 'fabric' device
> then I'll have to ensure that my board-fabric driver gets probed
> before default-fabric because they both want to bind to the fabric
> device.
If you need a board-specific fabric driver, the board platform code
shouldn't be instantiating the generic fabric driver. Given the board
specific driver a different name...
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
