On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:12:50 -0500, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Introduce a helper to match, create and probe a platform device. This >> is for drivers such as cpuidle or cpufreq that typically don't have a >> bus device node and need to match on a system-level compatible property. >> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Oh, ick. Please no. If a platform_device isn't getting created for a > device tree node, then we should be asking why it isn't getting created > and fix the core logic rather than trying to bodge it in the driver init > code. > > We should never be creating and registering devices in module init code. > We've spent the last 4 years trying to get away from that. This is for devices that have no DT device node to be associated with and therefore will never have a device created by the core DT code. Instead the devices are created based off of the root compatible property. cpuidle drivers are one such example [1]. We already do this today by putting the platform device creation in the machine_desc.init_machine function which is a conditional initcall. The motivation for changing this is how to support drivers like this on arm64 which doesn't want any platform code or machine_desc. At least historically, we didn't want DT nodes of Linux specific devices in the DT. So, how would you propose to solve this problem? Rob [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git/commit/?h=highbank-rm-mach-desc&id=f4c00839748688c480c56952cfc06d49aebe1162 -- 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
