On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Daniel Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 February 2011 20:34, Grant Likely <[email protected]> wrote: >> As mentioned in the other thread, matching by name is strongly >> discouraged. It isn't very accurate and compatible is the preferred >> method for binding devices. 'battery' in particular is highly >> non-specific. >> >> I do understand that you don't have a compatible property in the >> current firmware, and to a certain extent we have to live with what >> we're given by the kernel. However, I think it would be better in the >> OLPC case to find the battery node and add a compatible property >> before registering a platform_device for it. (or use a bus notifier >> to tell you when it is registered, and add 'compatible' at that >> point.) That way we the uncertainty is taken care of in the board >> support code without polluting the driver matching namespace. > > Thanks for the review. This and the rest of your feedback makes sense. > > Would you mind commenting on exactly how this should look?
Before calling of_platform_bus_probe(), search the device tree for the battery node and use prom_add_property() to add a compatible prop. > > Here are the changes i'm planning to make, both to the firmware and > with kernel code as you suggest to fixup device trees for systems with > old firmware: > > /battery@0/compatible property added with value "olpc-battery" (XO-1 and > XO-1.5) > /pci/isa@f/rtc@i70/compatible property prepended with "olpc-xo1-rtc," > (XO-1 only) > /pci/display@1,1/dcon device added, name=dcon compatible=olpc-dcon > (XO-1 and XO-1.5) Compatible properties should generally be in the form: "<vendor>,<part>". So these should probably be: battery: compatible = "olpc,xo1-battery"; rtc: compatible = "olpc,xo1-rtc"; dcon: compatible = "olpc,xo1-dcon"; I would explicitly specify the "xo1-" part in all three to protect against the eventuality of a new xo revision that has does something incompatible. ie. "olpc-battery" doesn't help if, say, XO-1.75 has a different battery. Newer configurations can claim compatibility with the old if they are truly compatible. > > In addition to the battery patch you reviewed, we plan to make the > olpc-rtc and DCON drivers bind to device tree nodes, which is the > reason behind the other changes. okay. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
