Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760067Ab2KBJ0m (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 05:26:42 -0400 Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:54358 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757555Ab2KBJ0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 05:26:40 -0400 Message-ID: <509391CA.9040408@ti.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:26:34 +0100 From: "Cousson, Benoit" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Kridner CC: Tony Lindgren , Koen Kooi , , , , "Porter, Matt" , Russ Dill , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2094 Lines: 56 Hi Jason, On 11/1/2012 7:50 PM, Jason Kridner wrote: > My apologies for starting a new thread, but I don't have this thread > in my Inbox. > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg81034.html > > Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> * Pantelis Antoniou [121031 15:02]: >>> >>> So when device's node is 'disabled' of_platform_device_create_pdata() >>> will not create the device. >>> >>> Now, of course it is possible to re-trigger the platform's probe method >>> to be called, and in fact I do so in the capebus patches. >> >> You should fix this in generic way then rather than working >> around it in capebus. The same problem exists changing >> between different functionality for the shared pins, >> let's say between USB pins and UART pins if you want a >> serial debug console on some phone. > > The current capebus solution goes a long way to fixing a huge issue > for BeagleBone users and I don't understand what seems to be a > push-back on principle. On BeagleBone capes, these conflicts cannot be > resolved early. I don't think there is any push-back on the principle. It is a very valid problem that does not have any solution today. The comments are more on the implementation. > Do you have suggestions on some more generic method? It seems to me > the proposed capebus approach strikes a good balance. Well, yeah, that's a generic DT issue, not a beagle-cape issue. We should not necessarily handle it by introducing some fake bus and some new binding like spi-dt / i2c-dt that does not mean anything in term of HW. DT is about pure HW representation. Introducing some fake hierarchy to make SW life easier is not necessarily the good approach. Adding the version information in the nodes is potentially a good idea, but should clearly be well thought and part of the DT core. Regards, Benoit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/