On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:49:25PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > I think the benefit here is that you can merely point > .acpi_match_table at an acpi_device_id[] table, then use > platform_get_resource() as a generic way to get resources, whether the > platform device came from OF, ACPI, etc. The alternative would be to > add, e.g., a PNP driver with a .probe() method that uses > pnp_get_resource(). That's not very much code, but it is more, even > if the .probe() method just calls a device registration function > that's shared across bus types. > > That benefit seems like a great thing, and my question then is why > wouldn't we just do it across the board and make platform devices for > *all* ACPI devices without having the I2C and SPI special cases? That wouldn't be any better than having a PNP or ACPI device. We must still create the corresponding I2C or SPI device in order to have a driver that can plug into I2C or SPI core. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
