On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 06:24:58PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 05:56:33PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > > Hm, I might well misunderstand something here, but it looks to me like > > > you > > > are again trying to use both OF _and_ platform (spi_board_info) bindings > > > for your SPI setup? > > > > Yes, you didn't misunderstand. ;-) > > > > > And this is exactly what we are trying to avoid in > > > Grant's series of patches... > > > > I didn't find other way... The show stopper is "master" argument, > > drivers don't know about masters (and should not, since if they should, > > then this implies that masters should be registered prior to devices, > > and that complicates everything). > > > > What is the problem with board infos, btw? I missed that part. Board > > In short: board infos are not bad as such. I find it bad if you have to > use both OF and platform bindings to describe _one_ piece of hardware.
This particular discussion isn't about describing hardware (since we're describing it via device tree), but about implementation details, such as: 1. Passing platform_data to the drivers; 2. Creating "SPI Linux devices" from the OF description. I see there ways: 1. Grant Likely's approach (works great for simple drivers which don't need SPI platform_data). 2. Old board infos approach, there we can do whatever we want. 3. Implementing OF bindings for the every SPI driver that needs platform_data. I could do "3", let's see what it will look like... -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
