On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:25AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:

On 8/1/08, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:01AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
 > On 7/31/08, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:
 > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06:20PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
 > >  > On 7/31/08, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:

[snip]

quoted

 > Why does the fake fabric device need to be in the device tree? Can't
 > we just dynamically create it as part of the boot process?


Um.. yes.. that would be exactly what instantiating it from the
 platform code does.

Platform devices are missing the compatible chain process. If we do
this with platform drivers the boot code creates a 'fabric' device
then I'll have to ensure that my board-fabric driver gets probed
before default-fabric because they both want to bind to the fabric
device.

If you need a board-specific fabric driver, the board platform code
shouldn't be instantiating the generic fabric driver.  Given the board
specific driver a different name...

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson