On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:09:34AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > 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). Exactly. I don't believe that AUX_DATA() should be used as a facility to override DT settings from platform_data. > But if you are handling both, then I agree that platform_data should > override DT. I do agree with this, but I haven't stumbled over such a use-case yet. I have only provided; clock names, DMA settings and call-back information via AUX_DATA() thus far, and those are being removed too when a) the correct bindings are mainlined and b) I have the time. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
