Le 09/01/2012 11:10 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit :
On 22:47 Fri 31 Aug , Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 08/31/2012 04:51 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
index f2112f9..0bc91e5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup periph_clocks_lookups[] = {
CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.0",&ssc0_clk),
CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.1",&ssc1_clk),
CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.2",&ssc2_clk),
- CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "at91_i2c",&twi_clk),
+ CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "at91rm9200_i2c",&twi_clk),
use i2c-xxx as on other drivers
and I do not like to have platform_device_id
Me, I like it and find this implementation very elegant.
as we need to touch the driver to add a new soc
So what? We still keep the compatibility if the new SoC has it
compatibility assured with previous revision: there is nothing to modify.
I agree. The driver would need to be touched to support new SoC only if
the IP there have had some differences, which would have needed to be
resolved anyway.
please use platform data
Using platform data for the dt platforms would have been more troublesome,
wouldn't it ? I like Ludovic's approach which handles both: dt and non-dt
cases in uniform way from the driver's POV.
no you will describe it via DT as done on all the other drivers
No, it does not have to be exposed to the user: these data are highly
dependent on the actual hardware (IP revision in fact). So, no need to
mess with platform data.
no I really see no point on these list of platform_id it's does not look more
nice just more huggly to have x names. This is at the end the same as passing
platform data via soc info (add_xx or dtsi)
And here you just do the same as cpu_is via names.
The driver need to read IP revision instead
At the beginning it was planned to do this but:
- a new SoC, with a new IP version lead to update the driver also
- with the MCI driver which uses IP version, I have some cases where
using the version was not enough, a SoC approach would be better. For
instance, the IP version tells that we can use PDC feature but PDC is
not connected.
Best Regards,
J.
Regards
Ludovic
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
