+ devicetree-discuss, lkml On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > But at that time, device tree was not there... > Now, the whole dev_attr stuff will be replaced because device tree is able to > provide the driver any kind of custom information that can be retrieved > directly from the driver without having to use a pdata in between. So I'm not > sure it worth spending too much time on that feature stuff. > > As an example here is the ongoing GPIO DT migration: > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg56505.html > > 3.2 will have the basic DT support using hwmod as a backend, but the idea is > that for 3.3, we start removing some information from hwmod to rely on device > tree only. One comment here though -- and I will make this comment on the original series too -- is that we should avoid adding direct DT dependencies into the driver. Specifically, these of_get_property() and of_property*() calls in the driver aren't right. We need some way of doing this that is completely independent from the device data format. Some way that does not care whether the input data is coming from DT, platform_data, ACPI, or whatever the new flavor of the year will be next year. Or we need to declare that these of_*() calls are not DT-specific, and define them as hooks that the device data format code can handle as it pleases. Otherwise we'll need shim layers for each new data format in the driver code and that will be a huge and unnecessary mess. - Paul -- 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
