On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:41:22PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 20:53 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Maybe should not add DT bindings for devices that can't be adequately > > expressed via DT properties [yet]? Because I do not see what benefits we > > get since platform code still needs to provide missing data and now we'd > > have issue of data not being there when device is registered and driver > > is being bound to it. > > You tend to find that in a lot of systems only need a subset of the > platform data - some of it can get pretty esoteric - or perhaps none at > all so they'll be able to run happily even if not everything can be > configured via the device tree. That is why I said "devices that can't be adequately expressed". If we can have bindings that satisfy majority of users then of course DT handling code is more than welcome. -- Dmitry -- 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
