[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 00/54] dm: Introduce new driver model uclasses

[Jagan Teki]

On 1 July 2015 at 00:12, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/30/2015 11:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi York,
>>
>> On 30 June 2015 at 10:08, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> wrote:
>>> Simon,
>>>
>>> Does the dm force using device tree? I was reviewing a patch set regarding SPI
>>> and found OF_CONTROL has to be selected in order to get the driver model happy.
>>>
>>> My understanding of the driver model is both device tree and platform data are
>>> allowed, like Linux. Is that still true?
>>
>> For buses you need device tree. I was rather hoping that we could
>> avoid platform data on platforms that have device tree. What is the
>> point?
>>
>
> Simon,
>
> It happens on a platform not using device tree, but DM will be used.
>
> I prefer DM to have both, rather than being forced to use device tree, unless we
> are going to enforce using device tree on all new platforms. Since device tree
> is still an option, I feel it is best to support platform data, like Linux
> drivers do.

I can understand your concern about pdata, but the dts is more dynamic approach
to get the device data and at least some of the architecture in u-boot
had a support
for it. And if we start with dts boards will turn it on to use dts
instead of going back to
use legacy pdata which is so called static approach (which might
increase the board
code, some times increasing configs)

Using/adding/going by dts support is more generic and dynamic instead
of static, IMHO

thanks!
-- 
Jagan | openedev.