2011/8/10 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:57:11PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2011/8/10 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> >> struct ads7846_platform_data {
>> >> u16 model; /* 7843, 7845, 7846, 7873. */
>> >> u16 vref_mv; /* external vref value, milliVolts
>> >> * ads7846: if 0, use internal vref */
>
>> > There's some callbacks but the bulk of the structure (including the bits
>> > I quoted above for example) looks like it's pure data and could sensibly
>> > be represented in the device tree.
>
>> there have been many discussions about what should be in dts.
>> basically, hardware information should be in dts, but data required by
>> driver implementation should be not in dts.
>> There are a lot of fields in the structure, not all can be a property
>> as hardware information in dts. That means the driver need a lot of
>> changes then.
>
> Things like the fields quoted above seem like they're fixed hardware
> properties that oguht to be in the device tree, though.
at least wakeup, irq_flags in the structure should be something
related with driver implementation not hardware. Suppose all others
are hardware properties, it looks terrible to list and get so many
properties in dts and drivers.
so do we have some simpler way to present a large number of properties in DT?
BTW, even though we make all hardware information be properties in
dts, drivers might still need some other platform_data only including
software-related stuff for implementation. And Callback is also
another big issue too.
if we can't avoid software platform data and callbacks, there will
still be some platform initilization codes in board files.
-barry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
