On 05/10/2011 04:22 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > John Bonesio wrote at Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:33 PM: >> The goal I'm working towards right now is to have the platform specific >> code continue to register the devices that are inside the SoC. Then use >> the device tree to register all other on board devices. > > Sure, that sounds right. > > Which branch are your patches aimed at? My discussions are all based > on my experience with Grant's devicetree/test branch. > >> This patch doesn't accomplish the whole goal in one step, but gets the >> code a little closer toward this goal. > > So what's confusing me is that I think the devicetree/test branch is > already there; board-dt.c registers all 4 SDHCI controllers, > tegra250.dtsi defines each controller's memory map etc., and disables > them all, then tegra-harmony.dts and tegra-seaboard.dts enable the > relevant subset of those controllers, and provides the required > platform data for them. > > When adding the I2C controllers, it seems like they'd just work the > same way as the existing SDHCI code. >From a philosophical point of view, they should be initialized the same way. Are you thinking that the i2c controller should be in the harmony_devices array and initialized with the other devices? If so i2c is different in the kernel. An i2c controller isn't registered with platform_device_register(). I may not be understanding your question. > > So, all this already works without putting the board-specific platform > data definitions into board-dt.c as an temporary measure. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
