On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :-) After an IRC conversation with Timur, I think we've pretty much sorted out the best way to handle the mpc8610 use case that allows the ssi/dma/codec drivers to remain blissfully ignorant and bind in the appropriate ASoC machine driver for the board. g. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
