On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:18:57PM +0200, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Courtney Cavin > <courtney.cavin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:07:13PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: > >> On 06/25/2014 01:36 AM, Courtney Cavin wrote: > > Greg, Grant, Rob? What's the law? > > Generally sub-blocks of a device are handled as platform devices. If > there is a good enough reason then creating a new device type may be > okay, but we certainly wouldn't want every PMIC or MFD driver to go > off and define their own bus. Probably not each vendor doing a bus > either. Thanks for the clarification! > > On a related note, it would probably be a good idea to move much of the > > platform resource stuff out of the platform code... so we don't > > re-implement it over-and-over again. > > Which part is implemented over-and-over? These two, and all the convenient wrapper/population functions: struct resource *resource; u32 num_resources; -Courtney -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
