On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 12:45 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > I don't agree with grant idea however that just converting the content > of the device node into properties is the way to go.
And here of course I meant " converting the content of the device node into into pdata" ... > I do prefer your proposed approach (from our IRC discussion) which is > instead to allocate a struct device-node, convert pdata into properties, > and modify the drier to use these properties. > > The main difference thus between the two type of conversions (convert to > of_platform vs convert to platform) is that in the first case, you have > to convert the driver to use properties -and- convert all platforms in > all archs including gory ARM cell phone stuff you really don't want to > go anywhere near. In the second case, you still convert the driver to > use properties natively, but you keep a "wart" to turn pdata into a > device-node -inside the driver-, protected by a CONFIG option maybe, so > that those archs can be left alone until it becomes so obvious to > everybody what approach is better that they'll end up being converted > too and the wart can go. > > I believe the second approach, while less "clean" in the absolute is a > more realistic path to take. > > Now, orthogonally to that, I do believe it's still nice to provide a way > to statically lay out a device node in platform code, to allow archs > that don't otherwise have the device-tree to replace pdata with > something nicer and get rid of the wart quicker. > > We could either find a way with macros to layout an actual struct > device_node statically along with all the properties etc... but that > sounds a tad hard. > > We could have something that convert an entirely ASCII representation > into a struct device_node, but that would be akin of having dtc in the > kernel, might be a bit bloated no ? Though it could be made simpler and > more restrictive. > > Or we could find an in-between .. .A different struct type that is more > suitable for being laid out statically (a name, a type, and an enum of > structs for various property "types", ie, strings, words, bytes, ...) > with a little helper function that conver that into a device node at > runtime ? > > What do you think ? > > Cheers, > Ben. > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
