On 06/30/2015 12:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:42:41AM -0700, York Sun wrote: >> >> >> On 06/30/2015 11:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi York, >>> >>> On 30 June 2015 at 10:08, York Sun <york...@freescale.com> wrote: >>>> Simon, >>>> >>>> Does the dm force using device tree? I was reviewing a patch set regarding >>>> SPI >>>> and found OF_CONTROL has to be selected in order to get the driver model >>>> happy. >>>> >>>> My understanding of the driver model is both device tree and platform data >>>> are >>>> allowed, like Linux. Is that still true? >>> >>> For buses you need device tree. I was rather hoping that we could >>> avoid platform data on platforms that have device tree. What is the >>> point? >>> >> >> Simon, >> >> It happens on a platform not using device tree, but DM will be used. >> >> I prefer DM to have both, rather than being forced to use device tree, >> unless we >> are going to enforce using device tree on all new platforms. Since device >> tree >> is still an option, I feel it is best to support platform data, like Linux >> drivers do. > > Well, to what end? My recollection is that in short, the kernel has > both since platform data predates device tree (and converting platform > data to device tree is still a thing that happens). But we're trying to > skip that intermediate step. Are there platforms where you do not plan > to use a device tree, ever? >
Tom, I am not against using device tree at all. It is more dynamic and flexible. But I don't see any indication that we favor device tree over pdata (except in the code). If we are skipping pdata for new drivers, a clear message will be helpful. That's what I am trying to get clarification. York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
