On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 19:15:05 +0000 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In which case, it may be better to reorder the remaining patches such > that the DT changes are at the very end - which means we can still > benefit from the rest of the patches if the DT solution remains an > open question. > > We do have another option now that my generic component support is in > mainline (merged during this window), which should result in a much > cleaner solution. If we convert TDA998x to a component, armada DRM > to a component master (and same for other tda998x users) then we don't > need the drm_encoder_slave stuff - all that goes away since it's no > longer necessary. > > We also solve this problem as well - because we're then not messing > around with working out if there's a DT node present: the TDA998x > device must pre-exist. For non-DT setups, this can be done when > the I2C bus is created - devices on it would be created using the > standard mechanisms already present via the i2c_board_data array. > For DT setups, the devices are created by parsing the I2C bus node > in DT. > > Both cases result in a component being registered upon invocation of > tda998x_probe(), and removal of the component when tda998x_remove() > is called. The tda998x driver becomes a standard I2C driver. > > This is something I've been intending to look at now that the component > stuff is in place - as I said previously when the questions around DT > and Armada DRM were first posed, we need to solve these issues in a > generic way first, rather than hacking around them. Agree. I was looking in the same direction... -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
