On 1 July 2015 at 02:38, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 30 June 2015 at 14:31, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 01:10:45PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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?
My observations with this approach (dm-spi) 1. We're planning to move spi driver with dm support but many of the boards which used spi drivers don't have dts support yet. 2. I think dm will progress only when dts support progresses. The only solution for this - if we need to move any driver to dm then check for dts on particular board this driver uses and move that board to have dts support. Any comments? >>> > >>> >>> 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. >> >> OK. I think we'd agreed to that at ELC-E last year and it might have >> been in a few here-and-there emails but it's worth spelling out >> somewhere. >> >> Hey Simon? doc/driver-model/README.txt has a pdata example, so maybe >> the answer here is it's time to update README.txt in a few ways :) > > I'll prepare a patch. thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot