Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Mitch,

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:

> On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>>> point.  The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>>> parent node to represent that bus.  It should have a driver whose API
>>> implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
>> 
>> It was discussed earlier that capebus isn't actually a bus. It's simply
>> a collection of a bunch of pins from the SoC hooked up to connectors.
>> I'd agree that it's mis-named.
>> 
> 
> Nevertheless, to the extent that the set of pins is finite and
> well-defined, it should be possible to define a set of software
> interfaces to support the functionality represented by those pins.
> 
> It might depend on the underlying SoC, but even so, it would still be
> best to encapsulate the interface set.  I hear all these use cases that
> presuppose a wide variety of user skill sets.  If one really wants to
> support such users well, it's important to define a coherent single
> point of interface.
> 
> 

That's what capebus is. Too bad there's such a fuss about the name.
Check out the thread from the start for the sordid details.

Regards

-- Pantelis

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/