On 2 July 2015 at 12:33, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > On 1 July 2015 at 02:38, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 30 June 2015 at 14:31, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 01:10:45PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/30/2015 12:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> > 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? > > My observations with this approach (dm-spi) > > 1. We're planning to move spi driver with dm support but many of the > boards which > used spi drivers don't have dts support yet. > 2. I think dm will progress only when dts support progresses. > > The only solution for this - if we need to move any driver to dm then check > for > dts on particular board this driver uses and move that board to have > dts support. > > Any comments?
Any suggestions? > >>>> > >>>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I am not against using device tree at all. It is more dynamic and >>>> flexible. But >>>> I don't see any indication that we favor device tree over pdata (except in >>>> the >>>> code). If we are skipping pdata for new drivers, a clear message will be >>>> helpful. That's what I am trying to get clarification. >>> >>> OK. I think we'd agreed to that at ELC-E last year and it might have >>> been in a few here-and-there emails but it's worth spelling out >>> somewhere. >>> >>> Hey Simon? doc/driver-model/README.txt has a pdata example, so maybe >>> the answer here is it's time to update README.txt in a few ways :) >> >> I'll prepare a patch. thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot