On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:43:22PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > BTW, OTOH writing all children into the DT actually describes the HW, > no ? And depending on the device I feel it'd be better to write that
Well, it depends on the hardware. Some hardware has a bunch of nice, neat IPs which can usefully be reproduced and which map sensibly onto OS abstractions but a lot of it doesn't and frequently the abstractions which Linux wants to use don't bear a huge resemblance to the hardware (and Linux's ideas can change over time, as with the clock API being factored out for example). > data to DT. Think of twlxxxx (TI's PMICs), we might have completely > unrelated drivers using one of TWL's GPIO lines as an interrupt source. > If that particular children isn't listed in DT, it can't be used as an > interrupt-parent, right ? You can have the interrupt controller there without having to list every IP in the device, just make the parent device the interrupt controller to DT. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
