On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:46:57 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > I acn undertand your complaint in the context of an OF driver
> > (which we don't have yet) but "mmio-ide" just means nothing to the
> > current driver, and it doesn't convery enough info on the
> > programming interface for the conceivable OF driver, it also does
> > need to know at least "reg-stride" (and maybe "reg-size" in case
> > only 16/32-bit accesses can be used). Well, if such driver will be
> > written, I/O mapping support will probably be dropped from it, so
> > indeed, calling it mmio-ide.c would make sense. But that can be
> > added when this driver is done, and for now
>
> I don't think the details of what Linux code currently exists should
> drive the device tree binding. That the current patches use
> platform_device glue code is an implementation detail (and one I'd
> rather see go away, in favor of a driver that supports both
> platform_device and of_device).
>
> > I'd really prefer the board name to appear in the "compatible" prop
> > (to which "mmio-ide" can be appended)...
>
> Sure, that's always good... it was the "instead" that I objected to.
>
Hmmm. So what is finally suggested devicetree node for this beast - can somebody refine?
I am a little bit confused about decided device_type and compatible fields...
--
Sincerely, Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
