On Sunday, March 13, 2011, Andy Green wrote: > On 03/13/2011 10:41 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > On Sunday, March 13, 2011, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:32:27PM +0000, Andy Green wrote: > >>> This introduces a platform API so busses can allow platform_data to > >>> be attached to any struct device they create from probing in one step. > >>> > >>> The function checks through the async platform_data map if one was > >>> previously registered, and checks the device's device path for itself > >>> and its parents against the mapped device path names. > >>> > >>> If it sees a match, it attaches the associated platform_data and sets > >>> that map entry's device_path to NULL so no further time is spent trying > >>> to match it. > >> > >> This _really_ should just use the device tree stuff, that is what it is > >> for, please don't duplicate it here in a not-as-flexible way. > > > > I agree. > > > > @Andy: If it doesn't work for you for some reason, please let us know the > > usage case that is not covered (in detail). > > The device tree stuff does not yet exist in a workable way, > platform_data is established everywhere except USB bus. Device tree > brings in bootloader version as a dependency: this method doesn't. It is not the same device tree we are talking about. :-) I mean device hierarchy (and I guess Greg meant the same). Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
