* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [110330 16:57]: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:31:59PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Still, because ARM is just a CPU architecture, those SOC vendors will > > always have something new to differenciate themselves from the other SOC > > vendors. And that cannot be described in a table alone. The power > > management hardware from TI will still require separate _executable_ > > code from the Freescale one, or the Samsung one, or the Nvidia one, or > > the Qualcomm one, or the Marvell one, yada yada. And I really don't > > want to see that code turned into some vendor provided buggy ACPI > > bytecode or similar. > > To get rid of all the platform related stuff, I think you'd need some > kind of bytecode to deal with some of the procedural stuff with various > platforms. Without bytecode, the only other way is to keep the stuff > as C functions in the kernel and find some way of binding them to > drivers through DT, which means we're still going to have platform > specific C files littering the kernel. The SoC specific code still needs to be different for things like PM, but that's pretty small compared to the mux/clock/hwmod data on omaps. Also I think we can make the PM code into loadable modules eventually. > While I can see DT solving the "declare this data structure" problem, > I believe that's only part of the issue. Yup I agree there are other issues too. > This is exactly why when DT was proposed as a miracle cure-all for ARM, > I wanted to see DT on a real ARM platform rather than just ARM Ltd's > simple and similar development boards. > > Certainly, though, DT for ARM is progressing. At least omap mux/clokc/hwmod data could come either from devicetree or be a loadable kernel module for most entries. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
