Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:36:51 +1000

On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:07 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The device-tree helps keep the platform .c file simple and devoid of too
> > horrible hacks, it allows to easily pass various configuration data to
> > leaf drivers such as i2c thingies, PHY devices etc... without gross
> > hooks between these and the platform, but the platform code still has
> > the upper hand for doing ad-hoc bits and pieces (or overwriting the
> > device-tree based behaviour) if necessary.
> 
> Once again, if you can get the device tree guys to buy into this and
> stick with it that sounds good but my experience has been that this
> isn't where any of these discussions end up. 

Well, as the person who came up with the flattened device-tree format in
the first place I suppose I qualify as a "device-tree" guy here :-)

At the moment, I'd say Grant (and to some extent Jeremy Kerr) are the
guys in charge though, but yes, I agree with you, there's a tendency to
be too over-exited and to want to do "too much" with the DT and that is
counter productive. It's a good tool but it's not going to solve world
hunger and in some places an ad-hoc bit of C code is a better option :)

Now, I don't think Grant is totally off the tracks here but I must admit
I haven't taken the time to ensure I understand perfectly everybody's
position in that debate. At least I made mine clear, hope this helps :-)

Cheers,
Ben.