On 11/08/17 15:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Since "/firmware" does not have its own "compatible" property as it's >> just collection of nodes representing firmware interface, it's sub-nodes >> are not populated during system initialization. >> >> Currently different firmware drivers search the /firmware/ node and >> populate the sub-node devices selectively. Instead we can populate >> the /firmware/ node during init to avoid more drivers continuing to >> populate the devices selectively. >> >> This patch adds initcall to achieve the same. > > Hmm, I'm a bit skeptical whether representing anything under /firmware > as a platform device is a good idea. Having a more structured way to > probe those seems like a good idea, but maybe a different subsystem > would be more appropriate. > Just a vague thought: if we go to an extent of creating a bus to deal with these, won't we need to be more formal and create compatible for that ? If we do that, then how do we support existing device trees ? Again we are back to the same point but I do agree with your views. > I do realize that a 'platform_device' has become a rather generic abstraction > for almost anything, but at some point we might want to draw the line > of what is a platform_device. > As Rob pointed out it's already being handled as platform_devices in many cases and my aim was just to reduce the duplication. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
