On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 04:04:10PM +0800, Lan Chunhe wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:31:57 +0800, Grant Likely > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:23:11PM +0800, Lan Chunhe wrote: > >>On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:50:45 +0800, Grant Likely > >><[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:52:20PM +0800, Lan Chunhe wrote: > >>>>Currently, of_platform_bus_probe() completely skips nodes which do not > >>>>explicitly match the 'matches' table passed in. Or, if the root node > >>>>matches, then it registers all the children unconditionally. However, > >>>>there are situations, such as registering devices from the root node, > >>>>when it is desirable to register child nodes, but only if they > >>actually > >>>>represent devices. For example, the root node may contain > >>both a local > >>>>bus and a PCI device, but it also contains the chosen, aliases > >>and cpus > >>>>nodes which don't represent real devices. > >>>> > >>>>This patch changes of_platform_bus_probe() to register all > >>nodes at the > >>>>top level if they either match the matches table (the current > >>>>behaviour), > >>>>or if they have a 'compatible' value (indicating it represents a > >>>>device). > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Lan Chunhe <[email protected]> > >>> > >>>I believe this is my patch I wrote and pushed out to my tree back in > >>>October. Was this cherry-picked out of the test-devicetree branch? > >> > >> Yes, I will add the signed off with you. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Lan Chunhe <[email protected]> > >> > >> At present I think that it is cherry-picked, and I have > >>tested it which > >> is OK. > >> Do you have better method? > > > >You need to be very careful about stuff like this. Posting a patch > >without attribution of the original author and has the original > >signed-off-by lines stripped off is an absolute no-no. In literary > >circles this would be called plagiarism. > > > >I don't think you did it intentionally, but proper attribution is a > >must, particularly because there are copyright issues involved. > > Sorry, thank you that you remind me. > > >As for this particular patch, I'm not particularly happy with it and I > >was planning to rewrite it. It is an inelegant solution and I think > >the registration of devices from the device tree can be made simpler > >instead of more complex like in this patch. > > Now this patch registers devices from the device tree. > Then which function of which file do you will modify?
I'm thinking about deprecating the whole recursive device registration entirely and instead making child device registration always the responsibility of a device driver. That would mean each bus node would bind to a simple device driver that registers the child platform devices in the .probe() hook. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
