Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] PLATFORM: Introduce async platform_data attachapi

[Andy Green]

On 03/13/2011 12:53 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:

> > > > 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).

I see.  Elsewhere on the previous thread people were proposing to use 
New Shiny Device Tree, hence the confusion.

I am using the old style device tree to walk the device's parent path. 
What were you guys actually suggesting to do differently via the device 
tree then that's cleaner?

-Andy
--
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/