On 1/17/11 7:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Chou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Walter Goossens <[email protected]>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Walter Goossens <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Chou <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/serio/altera_ps2.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/serio/altera_ps2.c
>> b/drivers/input/serio/altera_ps2.c
>> index 7998560..93054a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/serio/altera_ps2.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/serio/altera_ps2.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> #include <linux/io.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#endif
>>
>> #define DRV_NAME "altera_ps2"
>>
>> @@ -173,6 +176,16 @@ static int __devexit altera_ps2_remove(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +static struct of_device_id altera_ps2_match[] = {
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "altera,altera_ps2",
>> + },
> So is this an FPGA soft core PS2 device? Is there any kind of version
> attached to the soft core? The compatible value should specify an
> exact version of the implementation that this driver works with.
> (Newer core versions can claim compatibility with older ones, so the
> driver's compatible list doesn't need to be exhaustive).
>
What's the preferred way of versioning components in a device-tree?
Quite a few components inside an fpga will get a new version number with
every release of the tools. For example components supplied by Altera
will get a new number with every release of their IP library (approx.
twice a year) even when (at least from a software point of view) there
is nothing changed in the core. Should we add the number to the
"compatible" name and possibly get slightly more bulky drivers, or add a
version tag to the components where a driver can make decisions based on
the version of the core (if needed)?
Another way to reduce the number of lines in a compatible section would
be to add both their versioned and unversioned compatible entry in the
dts so drivers not needing a specific version don't need to supply the
entire list.
We do have the version numbers available when generating the DTS and
NiosII is still quite new to device-tree so we are still flexible in
fixing this in the best possible way.
> Otherwise, this patch looks correct.
>
> g.
>
>> + {},
>> +}
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, altera_jtaguart_match);
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_OF */
>> +
>> /*
>> * Our device driver structure
>> */
>> @@ -182,6 +195,9 @@ static struct platform_driver altera_ps2_driver = {
>> .driver = {
>> .name = DRV_NAME,
>> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> + .of_match_table = altera_ps2_match,
>> +#endif
>> },
>> };
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.3.4
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
