On 20/01/2020 17:03, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:43:10PM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > >> From discussions offline, I think I've come round to the view that >> having a "soft PDC" in device tree isn't the right solution. Device tree >> should be describing the hardware and that isn't actually a hardware >> component. > > You can use an implementation like that separately to it being in the > device tree, it is perfectly possible to instantiate devices that have > no representation at all in device tree based on other things that are > there like board or SoC information, or as subdevices of things that are > there. Yes - and I may yet implement a "soft PDC" device if this turns out to be more than a 'quirk' for a very small number of device. But like you say - it doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) in the actual device tree. For now though I think the code Nicolas has written works well enough and it's only really worth 'fixing' if we end up with too many 'quirky' devices. Steve _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
