On 07/02/2012 03:43 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 07/01/2012 04:03 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> ...
>>> Besides; if they are enumerated, non-memory mapped devices, then is it
>>> really appropriate to use platform_{device,driver}? I don't think it
>>> is.
>>
>> Hmm, well /everything/ that gets instantiated from DT is a platform
>> device at present, at least for the platforms and bus types we're using
>> on Tegra and I believe all/most ARM platforms, except some small amounts
>> of AMBA.
>
> Not true. SPI devices beget spi_device, i2c devices i2c_client, etc.
> The appropriate structure for the kind of device should always be
> used.
Yes, that's true.
But doesn't that lend even more weight to the need for an enumerated-bus
bus-type/compatible value? After all, the more important issue here (at
least initially) is the DT representation that we're defining, rather
than what Linux does with it internally.
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
