On 09/03/2012 09:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT. >>>> >>>> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority. >> >> No, that's wrong. If platform data is specified, it overrides DT, so >> that if the DT needs any fixup, it can be provided using platform data. > > Thanks Stephen, now there are two of us saying this, Lee please > follow this design pattern. > > (Unless Rob/Grant start shouting counter-orders...) Ideally, you only use DT or platform_data and you override DT with a new DTB. Hopefully we can ultimately remove platform_data or all but parts that can't be described in DT (i.e. function callouts). But if you are handling both, then I agree that platform_data should override DT. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
