On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:01:35 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:31 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:30:37 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > >>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:06:09 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm of the opinion that 'platform_device' shouldn't exist at all btw :) > >> Most of it's functionality can pretty easily be subsumed by device proper > >> and the world would be a better place :) > > > > I'm fine for merging some/all of the platform_device fields into struct > > device. There are a few things, like resources, which would probably be > > useful to have common on all struct device variants. However, > > platform_device is far more about matching drivers to devices. Even if > > all of platform_device went into struct device, there would still need > > to be the platform_bus_type as the collection point for the device > > drivers. > > > > We don't really need the resources structures on OF. That information is > present in OF format, which we can use to generate transient resources for > usage with the standard kernel interfaces. > > BTW, last time I checked resource handling was broken on release. > There are a few patches I sent out fixing it but they were probably ignored. Please send them again. They probably got lost. > >>> Can overlays interact in bad ways? If overlay 1 is installed before > >>> overlay 2, what happens if overlay 1 is removed? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, they can. It is not something easily fixed; the proper way would > >> be to calculate overlay intersection points and refuse to unload. > > > > I think this is important. If it cannot be solved immediately, then the > > kernel should enforce overlays always get removed in the reverse order > > that they were added. There may be use-cases that don't like it, but it > > is safe. > > OK, that makes sense. > > We are not talking about a global overlay stack though, we're talking about > an overlay stack for overlays that overlap. I'm actually talking about a global overlay stack. Otherwise you've still got the ever-increasing-phandles problem again. Cheers, g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
