On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:38:11AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/24/07, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > For example:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > > compatible = "<mfg>,<board>,sound" // The board might have
> > > more than one sound i/f which could be wired differently
> > > codec-handle = <&codec0>;
> > > };
>
> The difference here is that the node provides real information about
> the board. It has a compatible field which tells you *exactly* what
> sound circuit is present on the board. It can have additional
> information that does make sense to encode into the device tree (ie.
> the codec that is used). It's not addressable (no registers or
> anything), but it does describe the board.
>
> It would be possible and reasonable for a single fabric driver to work
> with many different circuit layouts as long as it has the information
> needed to adapt each instance.
This still seems nasty, since it seems to do little but duplicate the
platform information.
I'm afraid I still don't understand quite what information this
"fabric" driver is conveying. Is it really inherently platform
specific, or is it something that can be encoded directly in a
sensible way. If the latter we could have a general "device tree"
fabric driver that will handle all systems with the layout correctly
encoded in the device tree.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
