On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:34:12PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > I think Rob suggested that the SCU parent driver should instantiate the > > > watchdog without explicit watchdog node. That would be possible, but it > > > currently uses > > > devm_of_platform_populate() to do the instantiation, and changing that > > > would be a mess. Besides, it does sem to me that your suggested node would > > > describe the hardware, so I am not sure I understand the reasoning. > > It would just be a call to create a platform device instead. How is that a mess? > > It's describing firmware. We have DT for describing h/w we've failed > to make discoverable. We should not repeat that and just describe > firmware in DT. Make the firmware discoverable! Though there are cases > like firmware provided clocks where we still need something in DT, but > this is not one of them. > It requires extra code where an added DT node would accomplish the same. It requires a mix of DT nodes for existing devices plus extra code for newly added devices. To me that looks like a revert to old platform code, which was replaced with DT descriptions over the last several years. But then if that is where things are going, who am I to argue. Guenter
