| xj | b04a402 | 2021-11-25 15:01:52 +0800 | [diff] [blame^] | 1 | Linux and the Device Tree | 
|  | 2 | ------------------------- | 
|  | 3 | The Linux usage model for device tree data | 
|  | 4 |  | 
|  | 5 | Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> | 
|  | 6 |  | 
|  | 7 | This article describes how Linux uses the device tree.  An overview of | 
|  | 8 | the device tree data format can be found on the device tree usage page | 
|  | 9 | at devicetree.org[1]. | 
|  | 10 |  | 
|  | 11 | [1] http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage | 
|  | 12 |  | 
|  | 13 | The "Open Firmware Device Tree", or simply Device Tree (DT), is a data | 
|  | 14 | structure and language for describing hardware.  More specifically, it | 
|  | 15 | is a description of hardware that is readable by an operating system | 
|  | 16 | so that the operating system doesn't need to hard code details of the | 
|  | 17 | machine. | 
|  | 18 |  | 
|  | 19 | Structurally, the DT is a tree, or acyclic graph with named nodes, and | 
|  | 20 | nodes may have an arbitrary number of named properties encapsulating | 
|  | 21 | arbitrary data.  A mechanism also exists to create arbitrary | 
|  | 22 | links from one node to another outside of the natural tree structure. | 
|  | 23 |  | 
|  | 24 | Conceptually, a common set of usage conventions, called 'bindings', | 
|  | 25 | is defined for how data should appear in the tree to describe typical | 
|  | 26 | hardware characteristics including data busses, interrupt lines, GPIO | 
|  | 27 | connections, and peripheral devices. | 
|  | 28 |  | 
|  | 29 | As much as possible, hardware is described using existing bindings to | 
|  | 30 | maximize use of existing support code, but since property and node | 
|  | 31 | names are simply text strings, it is easy to extend existing bindings | 
|  | 32 | or create new ones by defining new nodes and properties.  Be wary, | 
|  | 33 | however, of creating a new binding without first doing some homework | 
|  | 34 | about what already exists.  There are currently two different, | 
|  | 35 | incompatible, bindings for i2c busses that came about because the new | 
|  | 36 | binding was created without first investigating how i2c devices were | 
|  | 37 | already being enumerated in existing systems. | 
|  | 38 |  | 
|  | 39 | 1. History | 
|  | 40 | ---------- | 
|  | 41 | The DT was originally created by Open Firmware as part of the | 
|  | 42 | communication method for passing data from Open Firmware to a client | 
|  | 43 | program (like to an operating system).  An operating system used the | 
|  | 44 | Device Tree to discover the topology of the hardware at runtime, and | 
|  | 45 | thereby support a majority of available hardware without hard coded | 
|  | 46 | information (assuming drivers were available for all devices). | 
|  | 47 |  | 
|  | 48 | Since Open Firmware is commonly used on PowerPC and SPARC platforms, | 
|  | 49 | the Linux support for those architectures has for a long time used the | 
|  | 50 | Device Tree. | 
|  | 51 |  | 
|  | 52 | In 2005, when PowerPC Linux began a major cleanup and to merge 32-bit | 
|  | 53 | and 64-bit support, the decision was made to require DT support on all | 
|  | 54 | powerpc platforms, regardless of whether or not they used Open | 
|  | 55 | Firmware.  To do this, a DT representation called the Flattened Device | 
|  | 56 | Tree (FDT) was created which could be passed to the kernel as a binary | 
|  | 57 | blob without requiring a real Open Firmware implementation.  U-Boot, | 
|  | 58 | kexec, and other bootloaders were modified to support both passing a | 
|  | 59 | Device Tree Binary (dtb) and to modify a dtb at boot time.  DT was | 
|  | 60 | also added to the PowerPC boot wrapper (arch/powerpc/boot/*) so that | 
|  | 61 | a dtb could be wrapped up with the kernel image to support booting | 
|  | 62 | existing non-DT aware firmware. | 
|  | 63 |  | 
|  | 64 | Some time later, FDT infrastructure was generalized to be usable by | 
|  | 65 | all architectures.  At the time of this writing, 6 mainlined | 
|  | 66 | architectures (arm, microblaze, mips, powerpc, sparc, and x86) and 1 | 
|  | 67 | out of mainline (nios) have some level of DT support. | 
|  | 68 |  | 
|  | 69 | 2. Data Model | 
|  | 70 | ------------- | 
|  | 71 | If you haven't already read the Device Tree Usage[1] page, | 
|  | 72 | then go read it now.  It's okay, I'll wait.... | 
|  | 73 |  | 
|  | 74 | 2.1 High Level View | 
|  | 75 | ------------------- | 
|  | 76 | The most important thing to understand is that the DT is simply a data | 
|  | 77 | structure that describes the hardware.  There is nothing magical about | 
|  | 78 | it, and it doesn't magically make all hardware configuration problems | 
|  | 79 | go away.  What it does do is provide a language for decoupling the | 
|  | 80 | hardware configuration from the board and device driver support in the | 
|  | 81 | Linux kernel (or any other operating system for that matter).  Using | 
|  | 82 | it allows board and device support to become data driven; to make | 
|  | 83 | setup decisions based on data passed into the kernel instead of on | 
|  | 84 | per-machine hard coded selections. | 
|  | 85 |  | 
|  | 86 | Ideally, data driven platform setup should result in less code | 
|  | 87 | duplication and make it easier to support a wide range of hardware | 
|  | 88 | with a single kernel image. | 
|  | 89 |  | 
|  | 90 | Linux uses DT data for three major purposes: | 
|  | 91 | 1) platform identification, | 
|  | 92 | 2) runtime configuration, and | 
|  | 93 | 3) device population. | 
|  | 94 |  | 
|  | 95 | 2.2 Platform Identification | 
|  | 96 | --------------------------- | 
|  | 97 | First and foremost, the kernel will use data in the DT to identify the | 
|  | 98 | specific machine.  In a perfect world, the specific platform shouldn't | 
|  | 99 | matter to the kernel because all platform details would be described | 
|  | 100 | perfectly by the device tree in a consistent and reliable manner. | 
|  | 101 | Hardware is not perfect though, and so the kernel must identify the | 
|  | 102 | machine during early boot so that it has the opportunity to run | 
|  | 103 | machine-specific fixups. | 
|  | 104 |  | 
|  | 105 | In the majority of cases, the machine identity is irrelevant, and the | 
|  | 106 | kernel will instead select setup code based on the machine's core | 
|  | 107 | CPU or SoC.  On ARM for example, setup_arch() in | 
|  | 108 | arch/arm/kernel/setup.c will call setup_machine_fdt() in | 
|  | 109 | arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c which searches through the machine_desc | 
|  | 110 | table and selects the machine_desc which best matches the device tree | 
|  | 111 | data.  It determines the best match by looking at the 'compatible' | 
|  | 112 | property in the root device tree node, and comparing it with the | 
|  | 113 | dt_compat list in struct machine_desc (which is defined in | 
|  | 114 | arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h if you're curious). | 
|  | 115 |  | 
|  | 116 | The 'compatible' property contains a sorted list of strings starting | 
|  | 117 | with the exact name of the machine, followed by an optional list of | 
|  | 118 | boards it is compatible with sorted from most compatible to least.  For | 
|  | 119 | example, the root compatible properties for the TI BeagleBoard and its | 
|  | 120 | successor, the BeagleBoard xM board might look like, respectively: | 
|  | 121 |  | 
|  | 122 | compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3"; | 
|  | 123 | compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3"; | 
|  | 124 |  | 
|  | 125 | Where "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm" specifies the exact model, it also | 
|  | 126 | claims that it compatible with the OMAP 3450 SoC, and the omap3 family | 
|  | 127 | of SoCs in general.  You'll notice that the list is sorted from most | 
|  | 128 | specific (exact board) to least specific (SoC family). | 
|  | 129 |  | 
|  | 130 | Astute readers might point out that the Beagle xM could also claim | 
|  | 131 | compatibility with the original Beagle board.  However, one should be | 
|  | 132 | cautioned about doing so at the board level since there is typically a | 
|  | 133 | high level of change from one board to another, even within the same | 
|  | 134 | product line, and it is hard to nail down exactly what is meant when one | 
|  | 135 | board claims to be compatible with another.  For the top level, it is | 
|  | 136 | better to err on the side of caution and not claim one board is | 
|  | 137 | compatible with another.  The notable exception would be when one | 
|  | 138 | board is a carrier for another, such as a CPU module attached to a | 
|  | 139 | carrier board. | 
|  | 140 |  | 
|  | 141 | One more note on compatible values.  Any string used in a compatible | 
|  | 142 | property must be documented as to what it indicates.  Add | 
|  | 143 | documentation for compatible strings in Documentation/devicetree/bindings. | 
|  | 144 |  | 
|  | 145 | Again on ARM, for each machine_desc, the kernel looks to see if | 
|  | 146 | any of the dt_compat list entries appear in the compatible property. | 
|  | 147 | If one does, then that machine_desc is a candidate for driving the | 
|  | 148 | machine.  After searching the entire table of machine_descs, | 
|  | 149 | setup_machine_fdt() returns the 'most compatible' machine_desc based | 
|  | 150 | on which entry in the compatible property each machine_desc matches | 
|  | 151 | against.  If no matching machine_desc is found, then it returns NULL. | 
|  | 152 |  | 
|  | 153 | The reasoning behind this scheme is the observation that in the majority | 
|  | 154 | of cases, a single machine_desc can support a large number of boards | 
|  | 155 | if they all use the same SoC, or same family of SoCs.  However, | 
|  | 156 | invariably there will be some exceptions where a specific board will | 
|  | 157 | require special setup code that is not useful in the generic case. | 
|  | 158 | Special cases could be handled by explicitly checking for the | 
|  | 159 | troublesome board(s) in generic setup code, but doing so very quickly | 
|  | 160 | becomes ugly and/or unmaintainable if it is more than just a couple of | 
|  | 161 | cases. | 
|  | 162 |  | 
|  | 163 | Instead, the compatible list allows a generic machine_desc to provide | 
|  | 164 | support for a wide common set of boards by specifying "less | 
|  | 165 | compatible" values in the dt_compat list.  In the example above, | 
|  | 166 | generic board support can claim compatibility with "ti,omap3" or | 
|  | 167 | "ti,omap3450".  If a bug was discovered on the original beagleboard | 
|  | 168 | that required special workaround code during early boot, then a new | 
|  | 169 | machine_desc could be added which implements the workarounds and only | 
|  | 170 | matches on "ti,omap3-beagleboard". | 
|  | 171 |  | 
|  | 172 | PowerPC uses a slightly different scheme where it calls the .probe() | 
|  | 173 | hook from each machine_desc, and the first one returning TRUE is used. | 
|  | 174 | However, this approach does not take into account the priority of the | 
|  | 175 | compatible list, and probably should be avoided for new architecture | 
|  | 176 | support. | 
|  | 177 |  | 
|  | 178 | 2.3 Runtime configuration | 
|  | 179 | ------------------------- | 
|  | 180 | In most cases, a DT will be the sole method of communicating data from | 
|  | 181 | firmware to the kernel, so also gets used to pass in runtime and | 
|  | 182 | configuration data like the kernel parameters string and the location | 
|  | 183 | of an initrd image. | 
|  | 184 |  | 
|  | 185 | Most of this data is contained in the /chosen node, and when booting | 
|  | 186 | Linux it will look something like this: | 
|  | 187 |  | 
|  | 188 | chosen { | 
|  | 189 | bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200 loglevel=8"; | 
|  | 190 | initrd-start = <0xc8000000>; | 
|  | 191 | initrd-end = <0xc8200000>; | 
|  | 192 | }; | 
|  | 193 |  | 
|  | 194 | The bootargs property contains the kernel arguments, and the initrd-* | 
|  | 195 | properties define the address and size of an initrd blob.  Note that | 
|  | 196 | initrd-end is the first address after the initrd image, so this doesn't | 
|  | 197 | match the usual semantic of struct resource.  The chosen node may also | 
|  | 198 | optionally contain an arbitrary number of additional properties for | 
|  | 199 | platform-specific configuration data. | 
|  | 200 |  | 
|  | 201 | During early boot, the architecture setup code calls of_scan_flat_dt() | 
|  | 202 | several times with different helper callbacks to parse device tree | 
|  | 203 | data before paging is setup.  The of_scan_flat_dt() code scans through | 
|  | 204 | the device tree and uses the helpers to extract information required | 
|  | 205 | during early boot.  Typically the early_init_dt_scan_chosen() helper | 
|  | 206 | is used to parse the chosen node including kernel parameters, | 
|  | 207 | early_init_dt_scan_root() to initialize the DT address space model, | 
|  | 208 | and early_init_dt_scan_memory() to determine the size and | 
|  | 209 | location of usable RAM. | 
|  | 210 |  | 
|  | 211 | On ARM, the function setup_machine_fdt() is responsible for early | 
|  | 212 | scanning of the device tree after selecting the correct machine_desc | 
|  | 213 | that supports the board. | 
|  | 214 |  | 
|  | 215 | 2.4 Device population | 
|  | 216 | --------------------- | 
|  | 217 | After the board has been identified, and after the early configuration data | 
|  | 218 | has been parsed, then kernel initialization can proceed in the normal | 
|  | 219 | way.  At some point in this process, unflatten_device_tree() is called | 
|  | 220 | to convert the data into a more efficient runtime representation. | 
|  | 221 | This is also when machine-specific setup hooks will get called, like | 
|  | 222 | the machine_desc .init_early(), .init_irq() and .init_machine() hooks | 
|  | 223 | on ARM.  The remainder of this section uses examples from the ARM | 
|  | 224 | implementation, but all architectures will do pretty much the same | 
|  | 225 | thing when using a DT. | 
|  | 226 |  | 
|  | 227 | As can be guessed by the names, .init_early() is used for any machine- | 
|  | 228 | specific setup that needs to be executed early in the boot process, | 
|  | 229 | and .init_irq() is used to set up interrupt handling.  Using a DT | 
|  | 230 | doesn't materially change the behaviour of either of these functions. | 
|  | 231 | If a DT is provided, then both .init_early() and .init_irq() are able | 
|  | 232 | to call any of the DT query functions (of_* in include/linux/of*.h) to | 
|  | 233 | get additional data about the platform. | 
|  | 234 |  | 
|  | 235 | The most interesting hook in the DT context is .init_machine() which | 
|  | 236 | is primarily responsible for populating the Linux device model with | 
|  | 237 | data about the platform.  Historically this has been implemented on | 
|  | 238 | embedded platforms by defining a set of static clock structures, | 
|  | 239 | platform_devices, and other data in the board support .c file, and | 
|  | 240 | registering it en-masse in .init_machine().  When DT is used, then | 
|  | 241 | instead of hard coding static devices for each platform, the list of | 
|  | 242 | devices can be obtained by parsing the DT, and allocating device | 
|  | 243 | structures dynamically. | 
|  | 244 |  | 
|  | 245 | The simplest case is when .init_machine() is only responsible for | 
|  | 246 | registering a block of platform_devices.  A platform_device is a concept | 
|  | 247 | used by Linux for memory or I/O mapped devices which cannot be detected | 
|  | 248 | by hardware, and for 'composite' or 'virtual' devices (more on those | 
|  | 249 | later).  While there is no 'platform device' terminology for the DT, | 
|  | 250 | platform devices roughly correspond to device nodes at the root of the | 
|  | 251 | tree and children of simple memory mapped bus nodes. | 
|  | 252 |  | 
|  | 253 | About now is a good time to lay out an example.  Here is part of the | 
|  | 254 | device tree for the NVIDIA Tegra board. | 
|  | 255 |  | 
|  | 256 | /{ | 
|  | 257 | compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20"; | 
|  | 258 | #address-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 259 | #size-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 260 | interrupt-parent = <&intc>; | 
|  | 261 |  | 
|  | 262 | chosen { }; | 
|  | 263 | aliases { }; | 
|  | 264 |  | 
|  | 265 | memory { | 
|  | 266 | device_type = "memory"; | 
|  | 267 | reg = <0x00000000 0x40000000>; | 
|  | 268 | }; | 
|  | 269 |  | 
|  | 270 | soc { | 
|  | 271 | compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-soc", "simple-bus"; | 
|  | 272 | #address-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 273 | #size-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 274 | ranges; | 
|  | 275 |  | 
|  | 276 | intc: interrupt-controller@50041000 { | 
|  | 277 | compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-gic"; | 
|  | 278 | interrupt-controller; | 
|  | 279 | #interrupt-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 280 | reg = <0x50041000 0x1000>, < 0x50040100 0x0100 >; | 
|  | 281 | }; | 
|  | 282 |  | 
|  | 283 | serial@70006300 { | 
|  | 284 | compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart"; | 
|  | 285 | reg = <0x70006300 0x100>; | 
|  | 286 | interrupts = <122>; | 
|  | 287 | }; | 
|  | 288 |  | 
|  | 289 | i2s1: i2s@70002800 { | 
|  | 290 | compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2s"; | 
|  | 291 | reg = <0x70002800 0x100>; | 
|  | 292 | interrupts = <77>; | 
|  | 293 | codec = <&wm8903>; | 
|  | 294 | }; | 
|  | 295 |  | 
|  | 296 | i2c@7000c000 { | 
|  | 297 | compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2c"; | 
|  | 298 | #address-cells = <1>; | 
|  | 299 | #size-cells = <0>; | 
|  | 300 | reg = <0x7000c000 0x100>; | 
|  | 301 | interrupts = <70>; | 
|  | 302 |  | 
|  | 303 | wm8903: codec@1a { | 
|  | 304 | compatible = "wlf,wm8903"; | 
|  | 305 | reg = <0x1a>; | 
|  | 306 | interrupts = <347>; | 
|  | 307 | }; | 
|  | 308 | }; | 
|  | 309 | }; | 
|  | 310 |  | 
|  | 311 | sound { | 
|  | 312 | compatible = "nvidia,harmony-sound"; | 
|  | 313 | i2s-controller = <&i2s1>; | 
|  | 314 | i2s-codec = <&wm8903>; | 
|  | 315 | }; | 
|  | 316 | }; | 
|  | 317 |  | 
|  | 318 | At .init_machine() time, Tegra board support code will need to look at | 
|  | 319 | this DT and decide which nodes to create platform_devices for. | 
|  | 320 | However, looking at the tree, it is not immediately obvious what kind | 
|  | 321 | of device each node represents, or even if a node represents a device | 
|  | 322 | at all.  The /chosen, /aliases, and /memory nodes are informational | 
|  | 323 | nodes that don't describe devices (although arguably memory could be | 
|  | 324 | considered a device).  The children of the /soc node are memory mapped | 
|  | 325 | devices, but the codec@1a is an i2c device, and the sound node | 
|  | 326 | represents not a device, but rather how other devices are connected | 
|  | 327 | together to create the audio subsystem.  I know what each device is | 
|  | 328 | because I'm familiar with the board design, but how does the kernel | 
|  | 329 | know what to do with each node? | 
|  | 330 |  | 
|  | 331 | The trick is that the kernel starts at the root of the tree and looks | 
|  | 332 | for nodes that have a 'compatible' property.  First, it is generally | 
|  | 333 | assumed that any node with a 'compatible' property represents a device | 
|  | 334 | of some kind, and second, it can be assumed that any node at the root | 
|  | 335 | of the tree is either directly attached to the processor bus, or is a | 
|  | 336 | miscellaneous system device that cannot be described any other way. | 
|  | 337 | For each of these nodes, Linux allocates and registers a | 
|  | 338 | platform_device, which in turn may get bound to a platform_driver. | 
|  | 339 |  | 
|  | 340 | Why is using a platform_device for these nodes a safe assumption? | 
|  | 341 | Well, for the way that Linux models devices, just about all bus_types | 
|  | 342 | assume that its devices are children of a bus controller.  For | 
|  | 343 | example, each i2c_client is a child of an i2c_master.  Each spi_device | 
|  | 344 | is a child of an SPI bus.  Similarly for USB, PCI, MDIO, etc.  The | 
|  | 345 | same hierarchy is also found in the DT, where I2C device nodes only | 
|  | 346 | ever appear as children of an I2C bus node.  Ditto for SPI, MDIO, USB, | 
|  | 347 | etc.  The only devices which do not require a specific type of parent | 
|  | 348 | device are platform_devices (and amba_devices, but more on that | 
|  | 349 | later), which will happily live at the base of the Linux /sys/devices | 
|  | 350 | tree.  Therefore, if a DT node is at the root of the tree, then it | 
|  | 351 | really probably is best registered as a platform_device. | 
|  | 352 |  | 
|  | 353 | Linux board support code calls of_platform_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) | 
|  | 354 | to kick off discovery of devices at the root of the tree.  The | 
|  | 355 | parameters are all NULL because when starting from the root of the | 
|  | 356 | tree, there is no need to provide a starting node (the first NULL), a | 
|  | 357 | parent struct device (the last NULL), and we're not using a match | 
|  | 358 | table (yet).  For a board that only needs to register devices, | 
|  | 359 | .init_machine() can be completely empty except for the | 
|  | 360 | of_platform_populate() call. | 
|  | 361 |  | 
|  | 362 | In the Tegra example, this accounts for the /soc and /sound nodes, but | 
|  | 363 | what about the children of the SoC node?  Shouldn't they be registered | 
|  | 364 | as platform devices too?  For Linux DT support, the generic behaviour | 
|  | 365 | is for child devices to be registered by the parent's device driver at | 
|  | 366 | driver .probe() time.  So, an i2c bus device driver will register a | 
|  | 367 | i2c_client for each child node, an SPI bus driver will register | 
|  | 368 | its spi_device children, and similarly for other bus_types. | 
|  | 369 | According to that model, a driver could be written that binds to the | 
|  | 370 | SoC node and simply registers platform_devices for each of its | 
|  | 371 | children.  The board support code would allocate and register an SoC | 
|  | 372 | device, a (theoretical) SoC device driver could bind to the SoC device, | 
|  | 373 | and register platform_devices for /soc/interrupt-controller, /soc/serial, | 
|  | 374 | /soc/i2s, and /soc/i2c in its .probe() hook.  Easy, right? | 
|  | 375 |  | 
|  | 376 | Actually, it turns out that registering children of some | 
|  | 377 | platform_devices as more platform_devices is a common pattern, and the | 
|  | 378 | device tree support code reflects that and makes the above example | 
|  | 379 | simpler.  The second argument to of_platform_populate() is an | 
|  | 380 | of_device_id table, and any node that matches an entry in that table | 
|  | 381 | will also get its child nodes registered.  In the Tegra case, the code | 
|  | 382 | can look something like this: | 
|  | 383 |  | 
|  | 384 | static void __init harmony_init_machine(void) | 
|  | 385 | { | 
|  | 386 | /* ... */ | 
|  | 387 | of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); | 
|  | 388 | } | 
|  | 389 |  | 
|  | 390 | "simple-bus" is defined in the Devicetree Specification as a property | 
|  | 391 | meaning a simple memory mapped bus, so the of_platform_populate() code | 
|  | 392 | could be written to just assume simple-bus compatible nodes will | 
|  | 393 | always be traversed.  However, we pass it in as an argument so that | 
|  | 394 | board support code can always override the default behaviour. | 
|  | 395 |  | 
|  | 396 | [Need to add discussion of adding i2c/spi/etc child devices] | 
|  | 397 |  | 
|  | 398 | Appendix A: AMBA devices | 
|  | 399 | ------------------------ | 
|  | 400 |  | 
|  | 401 | ARM Primecells are a certain kind of device attached to the ARM AMBA | 
|  | 402 | bus which include some support for hardware detection and power | 
|  | 403 | management.  In Linux, struct amba_device and the amba_bus_type is | 
|  | 404 | used to represent Primecell devices.  However, the fiddly bit is that | 
|  | 405 | not all devices on an AMBA bus are Primecells, and for Linux it is | 
|  | 406 | typical for both amba_device and platform_device instances to be | 
|  | 407 | siblings of the same bus segment. | 
|  | 408 |  | 
|  | 409 | When using the DT, this creates problems for of_platform_populate() | 
|  | 410 | because it must decide whether to register each node as either a | 
|  | 411 | platform_device or an amba_device.  This unfortunately complicates the | 
|  | 412 | device creation model a little bit, but the solution turns out not to | 
|  | 413 | be too invasive.  If a node is compatible with "arm,amba-primecell", then | 
|  | 414 | of_platform_populate() will register it as an amba_device instead of a | 
|  | 415 | platform_device. |