From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:16:25 -0700 Subject: How to handle named resources with DT? References: <20110809205723.GE11568@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20110824231613.GC19890@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110825102824.GB10405@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201108251705.43168.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <877h6173wm.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Thursday 25 August 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:16:14AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > on top of all that, for IPs which are used on many SoCs (such as MUSB) >> > it's quite silly to force all users to provide resources in a certain >> > order. It sounds to me that this will be prone to error in many ways >> > until everything is synced up and on the correct order. >> > >> > Ditching _byname is a very bad idea. >> >> I continue to disagree. The current _byname is an abonimation and hack >> to try to "fix" this problem. >> >> _byname should have been implemented differently - rather than overriding >> the resources name field (which is normally specified to be the device >> or driver name), a new field should have been introduced in struct resource >> to carry the resource sub-name (which is really what it is.) >> >> That would have avoided making /proc/iomem completely illegible with >> multiple devices using this feature. > > I agree 100%. Please clarify. What I hear Russell saying is a problem with the *implementation* of the _byname API. What I hear you sating is that since DT doesn't support this, we need to remove it's usage completely from platform_devices also. These are two very different approaches. Fixing the implementation as Russell suggested seems relatively easy, and conceptually similar to adding it to the DT. Removing _byname all together seems like significant work just to avoid adding a feature to the DT core. Kevin