On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:30:01PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

On 17/07/12 14:06, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

It's not just about having generic bindings, it's also about having
bindings which have some abstraction and hope of reusability. An awful
lot of bindings are just straight dumps of Linux data structures into
the device tree which don't make a terribly great deal of sense as
bindings.

The Device Tree should supply any platform configuration which the
driver needs in order to correctly setup for a particular machine.
This is exactly what the platform_data structure did before, hence
is is reasonable to assume that whatever information resides in that
structure would be required in the Device Tree.

An *awful* lot of what people are trying to put into platform data is
nothing to do with that, it's just the generic data the driver needs to
be able to understand the hardware at all.  Things like the MFD
breakdown, random parameters of the hardware which you can infer from
the device name and so on.