On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:01:35PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > Well, with DT, there won't be any 'board type' anymore. There won't be > > any 'machine_is_xxx()' to sort it out anymore. Using DT, all that will > > be history - it's all got to be sorted out by either devices or device > > properties. > > There is a board type - there's a root compatible property for the board > which fulfils this purpose - so the situation with and without device > tree is essentially the same. So instead of a table of machine id numbers and soc device strings, you're going to have a table of board 'compatible' strings and soc device strings, and you're going to have to manually create the struct device with that name. That's just twisted and utterly insane - adding more code for precisely zero benefit what so ever. Think about it - the device tree is *already* creating platform devices for entries in the device tree file. What's the point of having this special ASoC code look up the platform compatible property in a table of strings to find a different string to manually create a device with. Why not just _add_ the bloody device to the DT file in the first place? That's partly what DT is there for - to create platform specific struct devices. -- 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
