On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:01:03PM +0100, robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx wrote: > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > À: "Robert Jarzmik" <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> > Cc: barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 10:47:20 > Objet: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: smc1111: allow platform specific accessors > > > Yeah I know, connecting the 91c111 inspired the board designers to many > > funny things. Passing function pointers in platform_data is not very > > future proof since this doesn't work with device tree. I see that the > > Linux driver has device tree support. Does this binding work for you? > > Well, it can't, because lubbock doesn't support device-tree yet, it's on > my todo list for the kernel (and barebox of course). That means there is > no way to even build a device-tree enabled kernel for lubbock ... yet. > > Now the binding would work with : > - the address shift being declared (as in kernel driver) > - a set of 16 bit accessors being declared in barebox's smcs9111.c > driver (and not in platform specific accessors) > > Would you rather have me change the approach with a new set of accessor > in smcs9111.c, and the shift as a parameter (both platform_data and device- > tree) ? That sounds better. Using accessors in platform_data really is more flexible, but when switching to device tree we'll need a width/shift approach anyway. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
