[PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 24 January 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> 
> > Linus, does this fit with your plans for migrating to only
> > device-tree based probing for ux500?
> 
> Well the SoC registatration (I guess in mach-*/* someplace)
> needs to be DT compliant by parsing some node too, but
> that should be some minor thing.
> 
> I'm not smart enough to tell whether DT will automagically
> arrange parenthood between struct device * nodes or if
> that needs a lot of custom code to work?

Right now, of_platform_populate takes a struct device that is
used as the parent for all buses that get probed from the
OF device tree. This would need to be integrated with the
soc_dev probing in some way, either by letting
of_platform_populate call soc_device_register internally
and gaining an extra struct soc_device_attribute
argument, or by calling of_platform_populate from a
platform specific function and passing a device node
below the soc_dev into it.

> > I guess if this goes in
> > first, you will have to make a few changes so that it keeps working
> > when the devices are put into the dts.
> 
> Oh well, that is a bit ahead in time anyway. We need DT support
> in a plethora of drivers before we're getting anywhere on that.
> Niklas is the right one to ask I guess...

Are there really so many driver changes required for this? We would
not do it for the on-chip devices at first, so it basically comes
down to the the i2c, sdi, spi and uart devices, all of which have
bus bindings already. The hardest thing might be the pinmux
configuration, but you already know more about the state of that
than I do.

> > Everyone else, who is planning to use the infrastructure besides ux500?
> 
> I can easily see this being used in the ARM reference designs
> (Integrator, Versatile, RealView and Versatile Express) some of them
> I can possibly patch myself even. OMAP has expressed interest
> in "some way of getting the SoC ID out", and I guess this is
> the means to that end.

Ah, good. Once these patches are merged, we can easily refer anyone
to this infrastructure if they try to add a different way of finding
a SoC ID.

	Arnd