On 11/26/07, Koss, Mike (Mission Systems) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DL> And once again a plea to ALWAYS make version/capabilities registers > DL> atleast an optional part of every design. > DL> Embeddeding a device tree into a design might be fairly expensive. a > DL> pair of read only 32 bit registers is damn near free - basically the > DL> FPGA equivalent of atmost 64 diodes or resistors. > > SN> Actually, device trees actually seem to be cheaper (in the whole system > sense) than such registers. Unless there is something I don't understand? > > The issue here is that the hardware changed and the driver doesn't support > it. I think this would be fixed by having information passed to the driver > in the platform_device struct to specify information, since its not able to > be discerned by the physical hardware information: version registers, etc.
This is exactly the information that should be encoded in the 'compatible' property of the device tree. (instead of platform_data; platform_data is no longer required with the of_platform bus binding) *If* edk is generating our device tree(s) for us, *then* version registers are not needed by Linux. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
