On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 15:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Darren Hart [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:12:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

So as Mika has pointed out, LEDs aren't the only ones affected. Several drivers
will need to walk through non-device child nodes, and it seems to me that having
a firmware-independent mechanism to do so benefits the drivers by both making
them smaller and by increasing the reusability of new drivers and drivers
updated to use the new API across platforms.

In a recent round of reviews, for the OF case, that led to drivers
which used device_initcall() without being a module, getting a match
and handle to the parent device, and then walking over the nodes
and instantiating child objects (Linux devices usually) in the process.

It was done as a response to the remark from Rob Herring that
we were modeling things in the device tree as devices when they
really weren't, we were just doing it that way because it fits the
Linux device model and it's easier.

So we have that case too.

The question is if it's anything close to generalizable.

quoted

Grant, Linus W? Thoughts?

I'm uncertain on the whole subject, I called on the others
because of that...

For a while I had Andy Schevenko patch the GPIO and
SFI core too, but it timed out due to no response from Len
Brown. (Maybe I should just merge that stuff!) Do you (Intel) also
want to unify the Medfield SFI thing into this or have you
given up on it?

I think SFI is quite outdated stuff, though I have still Medfield device
close to me.

I don't think there will be any new platform with SFI (on the other hand
we never know :-) ). Thus, my opinion you may go ahead without worrying
about SFI.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref]
Intel Finland Oy