On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:43:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Well, I don't think it should because it describes the same resources
that the device tree node for the real device already describes. But
perhaps this is one of the cases where duplication isn't all that bad?

If we were worried about this wecould also do it by referring to
those nodes and saying "get all the resources these things need" rather
than duplicating the references (this might make it easier to work out
when the system is ready to hand off to the real drivers).

You can have a single node for both simplefb and the later "real" driver.
DT describes the hardware, not the software ecosystem running on the
hardware. Clock, regulators, etc. don't change from a hardware point of
view.

If the firmware initialized a suitable graphics mode, it just has to add
"linux,simplefb" to the compatible property (and perhaps a few other
simplefb-specific properties).

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to work. Especially on ARM SoCs
there is no single node for a display device. The display device is
typically composed of several subdevices.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20141002/2d4f759b/attachment.sig>