From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756694Ab1CaAPp (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:15:45 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:51457 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756678Ab1CaAPn (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:15:43 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 98.234.237.12 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18YuVKPMgvjxRIVplC9P1mr Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:15:32 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Linus Torvalds , Arnd Bergmann , David Brown , lkml , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window Message-ID: <20110331001531.GR18334@atomide.com> References: <20110317183048.GW7258@atomide.com> <20110318101512.GA15375@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201103301906.42429.arnd@arndb.de> <20110330235930.GA6680@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110330235930.GA6680@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Russell King - ARM Linux [110330 16:57]: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:31:59PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Still, because ARM is just a CPU architecture, those SOC vendors will > > always have something new to differenciate themselves from the other SOC > > vendors. And that cannot be described in a table alone. The power > > management hardware from TI will still require separate _executable_ > > code from the Freescale one, or the Samsung one, or the Nvidia one, or > > the Qualcomm one, or the Marvell one, yada yada. And I really don't > > want to see that code turned into some vendor provided buggy ACPI > > bytecode or similar. > > To get rid of all the platform related stuff, I think you'd need some > kind of bytecode to deal with some of the procedural stuff with various > platforms. Without bytecode, the only other way is to keep the stuff > as C functions in the kernel and find some way of binding them to > drivers through DT, which means we're still going to have platform > specific C files littering the kernel. The SoC specific code still needs to be different for things like PM, but that's pretty small compared to the mux/clock/hwmod data on omaps. Also I think we can make the PM code into loadable modules eventually. > While I can see DT solving the "declare this data structure" problem, > I believe that's only part of the issue. Yup I agree there are other issues too. > This is exactly why when DT was proposed as a miracle cure-all for ARM, > I wanted to see DT on a real ARM platform rather than just ARM Ltd's > simple and similar development boards. > > Certainly, though, DT for ARM is progressing. At least omap mux/clokc/hwmod data could come either from devicetree or be a loadable kernel module for most entries. Regards, Tony