On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:01:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:37:01PM +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44:53AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:25:28PM +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 07:39:17PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:13:31AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > Yes it is, you all are the ones tasked with implementing the crazy crap > > > > > > the hardware people have created, best of luck with that :) > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. The first assumption should be that we can fit in with the > > > > > existing device model -- we should only reconsider if we find that > > > > > to be impossible. > > > > > > > > Let me know if you think it is somehow impossible, but you all should > > > > really push back on the insane hardware designers that are forcing you > > > > all to do this work. I find it "interesting" how this all becomes your > > > > workload for their crazy ideas. > > > > > > Oh, I don't think we're claiming anything is impossible here :) It's more > > > that we will probably want to make some changes to the device model to allow, > > > for example, a device to be associated with multiple buses of potentially > > > different types. > > > > Why would you want that? What good would that help with? > > It would help with devices which have their slave interface on one bus, but > master to another. > > We need a way to configure the master side of things (IOMMU, coherency, MSI > routing, etc) on one bus and configure the slave side (device probing, power > management, clocks, etc) on another. Make this two "devices" and have each "device" have a pointer or a way to "find" the other one. -- 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
