| title: | Re RFC PATCH Device Tree on ARM platform |
|
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:32:40PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
and half-assed example of this). However, when it comes to complex
configurations that cannot be easily described, Im all for using
platform specific code.
Indeed, and I do appreciate this. The problem in the audio area is more
when new people come along since everyone working with the device tree
expects to be able to use the device tree to cover everything which
means going round things again and explaining how non-trivial that would
be.
In fact, I may have been premature in pursuing the generic description
and generic fabric driver approach for the MPC5200 audio driver. It
may have been better to get a few similar MPC5200 boards under our
belt before trying to identifying the common cases.
Sure. My only big concern with it is that it compeltely sidesteps
clocking decisions so theres a lot of codecs its not going to be
immediately useful with and I dont have a clear idea how it could be
extended to be so. Most other things look like they can be added on
fairly easily when required.
Itd also be nice if there were a way for systems to say that theyre
able to use it but thats getting back to the whole OS-specifics in the
device tree thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: rel="nofollow" lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
FAQ: rel="nofollow" www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php
Etiquette: rel="nofollow" www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php
|
