dm: Introduce new driver model uclasses
Get series with b4
b4 am 20150630203136.GF28577@bill-the-catVersions newest first · linked by author and title
- v3 Latest posting 2/20 of 54 patches 0 repliesNew
- v3 posting 1/20 of 54 patches 0 repliesSuperseded
Patches in v3 posting 2/2 No applies recorded yet
None of the 54 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v3 yet.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 00/54] dm: Introduce new driver model uclasses
Quoted 39 lines · York Sun
Quoted 29 lines · Tom Rini
Quoted 19 lines · York Sun
Quoted 8 lines · Simon Glass
Hi York,
Quoted 5 lines · York Sun
Simon,
Does the dm force using device tree? I was reviewing a patch set regarding SPI and found
OF_CONTROLhas to be selected in order to get the driver model happy.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 6 lines
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 :)
Signature · 8 lines
Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20150630/3485f1d4/attachment.sig>