On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:12, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > David Woodhouse wrote: > > >>>>Ok. I'll submit a new patch as soon as we agree on a compatible name. > > >>>Did we? > > >> IIRC, The latest agreement was that we don't need the "compatible" and > >>will match on node name. > > > Ok. Is there a current patch I should be merging? > > Looks like it was decided to revert to the platform device method, not > sure why -- so, no changes. Laurent?
Last thing I heard was that the device tree should not encode a device's expected usage, so memory nodes should not have any compatible property that would automatically associated them to an MTD driver. I've been adviced to add platform-specific code to instantiate a platform device manually (possibly checking if the required memory node is present in the device tree). This arguably makes sense, but adds more platform-specific code. So, no need for a patch so far. -- Laurent Pinchart CSE Semaphore Belgium Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A B-1410 Waterloo Belgium T +32 (2) 387 42 59 F +32 (2) 387 42 75
pgp3fLPlDnaxC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
