From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb•de>
To: linuxppc-dev@lists•ozlabs.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org, devicetree-discuss@lists•ozlabs.org,
David Miller <davem@davemloft•net>,
jk@ozlabs•org
Subject: Re: Deprecating of_platform, the path from here...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:17:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200912112117.44022.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40912110844l5990d6fbh7c9c0928513b055d@mail.gmail.com>
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 is far more feasible to fold of_platform
> features into platform bus than it is to ask current platform users to
> migrate over to of_platform.
Yes, I think you have convinced me. For me the key argument is that
we can extend platform_bus to do everything that of_platform_bus
does today.
If we can automatically turn "reg" and "interrupt" properties into
resources for the platform_devices created from a device tree,
and add interfaces to platform_device to operate directly on properties
of the underlying device, I'm happy.
DMA address translation is something that will require some care
to get right with platform_device, and it's important that we come
up with a nice syntax to define properties for regular
platform_devices that do not come from a device tree.
> Now, if consensus can be reached among architecture maintainers to
> make of_platform the preferred approach, and to deprecate platform
> bus, then I'm all for it and I'll work towards it However, I
> personally don't think it will fly and so I'm not spending any effort
> on that direction.
Right.
Arnd <><
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-11 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-09 22:06 Deprecating of_platform, the path from here Grant Likely
2009-12-10 0:15 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 0:21 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 20:47 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-10 21:56 ` David Miller
2009-12-10 22:03 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-11 15:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-12-11 15:53 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2009-12-11 16:44 ` Grant Likely
2009-12-11 21:17 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2009-12-11 22:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 1:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 21:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-10 21:53 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200912112117.44022.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb$(echo .)de \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
--cc=jk@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox