drivers: PL061: Add platform driver probing support
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 2 patches 1 replyIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/2] drivers: PL061: Add platform driver probing support
Quoted 35 lines · Russell King - ARM Linux
Quoted 34 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 23 lines · Russell King - ARM Linux
Quoted 13 lines · Shannon Zhao
Hi Russell,
Quoted 10 lines · Russell King - ARM Linux
Quoted 8 lines · Shannon Zhao
From: Shannon Zhao <[email protected]>
According to ACPI SPEC, it supports ARM boards to use "GPIO-signaled ACPI Events". These events can be used for input events. And to QEMU, it uses GPIO PL061 controller for input events.
These two patches add platform driver support for PL061 probed by DT or ACPI.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
This certainly is incorrect for DT, and is probably wrong for ACPI too. DT creates amba devices, so binds via the amba device driver.
Oh, sorry. The changes for DT are not necessary. But for ACPI I think it needs to convert pl061 to platform device since ACPI doesn't support AMBA devices. The Pl011 also does the same thing to support ACPI probing. See
drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.cQuoted 5 lines
Maybe rather than having every AMBA driver also converted to a platform driver (which GregKH hates) maybe ACPI should support the AMBA bus instead?
Greg?
The ACPI developers have been doing work to allow a driver to handle getting the resources from either DT or ACPI no matter what bus it is on, so converting anything to a platform driver shouldn't be needed.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
but I don't really know the details here, and this isn't being sent to the ACPI mailing list, so I don't know what to suggest...
Greg,
You're the one who's said many times that you'd like to see platform devices and platform device drivers to go away.
Yes, of course, I hate the things :)
Quoted 5 lines
So, when I give you
the opportunity to comment on platform devices being used to augment existing device drivers such as the AMBA bus drivers (which you've also previously said is a more preferable way to use the driver model) why not support that view?
Because I don't know the whole story here, sorry.
Quoted 3 lines
Right now, there seems to be a move to convert _all_ AMBA device drivers to become dual-drivers: an amba bus driver and a platform driver. Is that something you really want to see, irrespective of ACPI issues?
Ick, no, I don't think that's wise at all. Why not just make the needed resources availble to _all_ bus drivers, then it doesn't matter if it's AMBA, or ACPI, or USB, or anything else?
I thought that is what some recent patches did to the acpi/of core, but maybe I was mistaken.
thanks,
greg k-h