On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:07 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
The device-tree helps keep the platform .c file simple and devoid of too horrible hacks, it allows to easily pass various configuration data to leaf drivers such as i2c thingies, PHY devices etc... without gross hooks between these and the platform, but the platform code still has the upper hand for doing ad-hoc bits and pieces (or overwriting the device-tree based behaviour) if necessary.
Once again, if you can get the device tree guys to buy into this and stick with it that sounds good but my experience has been that this isn't where any of these discussions end up.
Well, as the person who came up with the flattened device-tree format in the first place I suppose I qualify as a "device-tree" guy here :-)
At the moment, I'd say Grant (and to some extent Jeremy Kerr) are the guys in charge though, but yes, I agree with you, there's a tendency to be too over-exited and to want to do "too much" with the DT and that is counter productive. It's a good tool but it's not going to solve world hunger and in some places an ad-hoc bit of C code is a better option :)
Now, I don't think Grant is totally off the tracks here but I must admit I haven't taken the time to ensure I understand perfectly everybody's position in that debate. At least I made mine clear, hope this helps :-)
Cheers, Ben.