From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: support an enumerated-bus compatible value Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:28:37 -0600 Message-ID: <4FF22095.4030106@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1340924755-31447-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <4FF0A6B6.8040902@gmail.com> <4FF1C567.4060809@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 07/02/2012 03:43 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/01/2012 04:03 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> ... >>> Besides; if they are enumerated, non-memory mapped devices, then is it >>> really appropriate to use platform_{device,driver}? I don't think it >>> is. >> >> Hmm, well /everything/ that gets instantiated from DT is a platform >> device at present, at least for the platforms and bus types we're using >> on Tegra and I believe all/most ARM platforms, except some small amounts >> of AMBA. > > Not true. SPI devices beget spi_device, i2c devices i2c_client, etc. > The appropriate structure for the kind of device should always be > used. Yes, that's true. But doesn't that lend even more weight to the need for an enumerated-bus bus-type/compatible value? After all, the more important issue here (at least initially) is the DT representation that we're defining, rather than what Linux does with it internally.