Hi, I found some typos in this
On Friday 06 of June 2014 13:13:32 Simon Glass wrote: > The lifecycle of a device is an important part of driver model. Add to the > existing documentation and clarify it. ...snip... > +This means that instead of having lots of U_BOOT_DEVICE() declarations in > +the board file, we put these in the device tree. This approach allows a lot > +more generality, since the same board file can support many types of > boards +(e,g. with the same SoC) just by using different device trees. An > added +benefit is that the Linux device tree can be used, thus further > simplifying +the task of board-bring up either for U-Boot or Linux devs > (whoever gets to +the baord first!). s/baord/board/ ...snip... > +Note that compared to Linux, U-Boot's driver model has a separate step of > +probe/remove which is independent of bind/unbind. This is partly because in > +U-Boot it may be expensive to prove devices and we don't want to do it > until +they are needed, or perhaps until after relocation. s/prove/probe/ ...snip... > + d. All parent devices are probed. It is not possible to activate a > device + unless its parents (all the way up to the root device) are > activated. + This means (for example) that an I2C driver will require > that its bus + be activated. s/parents/predecessors/ in a tree, a node can have up to one parent. parent of a parent (recursively) is a predecessor. ...snip... > + e. The device is marked inactive. Note that it is still bound, so the > + device structure itself is not freed at this point. Should the device be > + activated again, then the cycle starts again at step 4 above. if there were no drastic changes since I last checked, this would go to activation/probe(), which is described in step 2 regards Pavel Herrmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
