On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:10:19PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > [...] > Several weeks back I posted a patch for of_platform_bus_snoop() which > matches platform_device registrations to nodes in the device tree > instead of allocating and registering a new device. I've spent some > more time on that patch in the last couple of weeks to the point that > I'm happy with the model and I'm almost ready to push it out to my > devicetree/test branch. John Bonesio is currently refactoring and
I have seen it on devicetree/test branch. > cleaning it up for me so that it can get posted. You can see the > current state in my devicetree/preregister branch, with tegra modified > to use it. > > The model is: > > 1) Platform code calls of_platform_device_preregister() to tell the DT > code about the nodes it /intends/ to register as devices. > 2) Platform code can register as many or as few platform_devices as it > likes. If any of these devices match one of the nodes passed by > of_platform_device_preregister(), then the DT code will set the > of_node pointer before it gets bound to a device. > 3) Platform code calls of_platform_device_probe() which will > register platform_devices for any nodes which *did not* get > assigned to a device in step 2. > > I implemented this as a way to allow dt and non-dt use-cases to share > the same SoC setup code so that anything on-chip would get registered > in the same way, but would also get the benefit of being linked to its > device tree node. For example, to obtain the list of i2c devices or > gpio connections from the tree. It also helps solve the problem of > matching nodes to clks which are currently matched by name. I think > it would also solve your use case, at least in the short term. > I'm seeing this approach benefits the smooth moving of dt on ARM, but will this be the ultimate shape of dt support on ARM? -- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
