On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:42:41AM -0700, York Sun wrote: > > > On 06/30/2015 11:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi York, > > > > On 30 June 2015 at 10:08, York Sun <york...@freescale.com> wrote: > >> Simon, > >> > >> Does the dm force using device tree? I was reviewing a patch set regarding > >> SPI > >> and found OF_CONTROL has to be selected in order to get the driver model > >> happy. > >> > >> My understanding of the driver model is both device tree and platform data > >> are > >> allowed, like Linux. Is that still true? > > > > For buses you need device tree. I was rather hoping that we could > > avoid platform data on platforms that have device tree. What is the > > point? > > > > Simon, > > It happens on a platform not using device tree, but DM will be used. > > I prefer DM to have both, rather than being forced to use device tree, unless > we > are going to enforce using device tree on all new platforms. Since device tree > is still an option, I feel it is best to support platform data, like Linux > drivers do.
Well, to what end? My recollection is that in short, the kernel has both since platform data predates device tree (and converting platform data to device tree is still a thing that happens). But we're trying to skip that intermediate step. Are there platforms where you do not plan to use a device tree, ever? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
