On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
{ device_operations = "w83627thg_ops"; /* To override any of these, put the over-ride in mainboard dts. */
/* COM1 */ pnp@2{ com1dev = "2"; com1enable = "0"; com1io = "0x3f8"; com1irq = "4"; };
Questions I have no answer to: Before I put the pnp2 in , we got this:
struct superio_winbond_w83627thg_dts_config domain_0_ioport_2e = { .com1dev = 0x2, .com1enable = 0x0, .com1io = 0x3f8,
etc.
What should we get now?
struct superio_common_pnp domain_0_ioport_2e_pnp_2 = { .enable = 0x0, .io = 3f8,
struct superio_common_pnp domain_0_ioport_2e_pnp_5 = { .enable = 0x0, .io = 3f8, etc.
Should pnp2 be a device?
That's the way it is now. I'm just making them static instead of dynamic.
Child or sibling of w83627thg?
Child? That's how I did it.
What device_operations should it have?
Enable and set.
One possibiltiy: if no device_operations property in the pnp@2 node, inherit from parent.
That's how I did it the first time, but then I saw that you were already passing it into the PNP code in the info structure, so I took it back out.
What do you want to see?
I'm not picky if it works. I could go back and implement it with it all inside the device. I would just have to change the PNP code a _lot_ more than I did. There would have to be more passes so that you could get the devices set up, then go back and initialize them with resources. I was trying to minimize changes.
Thanks, Myles