On Thursday 10 December 2009, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:15:50 -0800 (PST)
What a shame, it's one of the cleanest driver probing models
in the tree.
And
On Thursday 10 December 2009, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:15:50 -0800 (PST)
What a shame, it's one of the cleanest driver probing models
in the tree.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:15:50 -0800 (PST)
What a shame,
On Friday 11 December 2009 16:44:32 Grant Likely wrote:
platform users far outnumber of_platform users. I actually don't care
which becomes the 'preferred' bus, just as long as one is chosen. It
is easy to migrate features between them. When I look at the work
required though, I think it
The key to the solution IMHO is the ability to create an of_platform_device
in a hardcoded way without data from a device tree, like we create a
platform_device today. All these static of_devices would then be rooted
in /sys/platform by default, while those that come from a device tree are
Hi David,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:15:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:06:29 -0700
1) of_platform will be deprecated in
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 12:45 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I don't agree with grant idea however that just converting the content
of the device node into properties is the way to go.
And here of course I meant converting the content of the device node
into into pdata ...
I do prefer
Hey guys, some more thoughts below...
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
First the probing because that's the real important issue, I believe the
other one is mostly academic and can be dealt on a per driver basis
(I'll discuss it later too).
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:47:33 -0700
Trying to go the other way around (deprecate platform and encouraging
of_platform instead) I don't think will gain much traction; whereas I
think bringing of_platform features into platform will be an easier
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:47:33 -0700
Trying to go the other way around (deprecate platform and encouraging
of_platform instead) I don't think will gain much traction; whereas
Hi all,
This is a summary of a discussion we had on #mklinux last night.
On PowerPC, SPARC and Microblaze, most system (non-discoverable)
devices are registered on the of_platform bus. In the rest of the
kernel, the same kind of devices are registered on the platform bus.
The of_platform and
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:06:29 -0700
1) of_platform will be deprecated in preference of the platform bus.
What a shame, it's one of the cleanest driver probing models
in the tree.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:15:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:06:29 -0700
1) of_platform will be deprecated in preference of the platform bus.
What a shame, it's one of the cleanest driver probing
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 16:15 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:06:29 -0700
1) of_platform will be deprecated in preference of the platform bus.
What a shame, it's one of the cleanest driver probing models
in the tree.
It is
14 matches
Mail list logo
