On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:07 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > The device-tree helps keep the platform .c file simple and devoid of too > > horrible hacks, it allows to easily pass various configuration data to > > leaf drivers such as i2c thingies, PHY devices etc... without gross > > hooks between these and the platform, but the platform code still has > > the upper hand for doing ad-hoc bits and pieces (or overwriting the > > device-tree based behaviour) if necessary. > > Once again, if you can get the device tree guys to buy into this and > stick with it that sounds good but my experience has been that this > isn't where any of these discussions end up. Well, as the person who came up with the flattened device-tree format in the first place I suppose I qualify as a "device-tree" guy here :-) At the moment, I'd say Grant (and to some extent Jeremy Kerr) are the guys in charge though, but yes, I agree with you, there's a tendency to be too over-exited and to want to do "too much" with the DT and that is counter productive. It's a good tool but it's not going to solve world hunger and in some places an ad-hoc bit of C code is a better option :) Now, I don't think Grant is totally off the tracks here but I must admit I haven't taken the time to ensure I understand perfectly everybody's position in that debate. At least I made mine clear, hope this helps :-) Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
