On 1 July 2015 at 00:12, York Sun <york...@freescale.com> 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.
I can understand your concern about pdata, but the dts is more dynamic approach to get the device data and at least some of the architecture in u-boot had a support for it. And if we start with dts boards will turn it on to use dts instead of going back to use legacy pdata which is so called static approach (which might increase the board code, some times increasing configs) Using/adding/going by dts support is more generic and dynamic instead of static, IMHO thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
