On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:35 -0700, Wang Wenhu wrote:
> > +#define UIO_INFO_VER "devicetree,pseudo"
>
> What does this mean? Changing a number into a non-obvious string (Why
> "pseudo"? Why does the UIO user care that the config came from the device
> tree?) just to avoid setting off Greg's version number autoresponse isn't
> really helping anything.
>
> > +static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram", },
Form is <vendor>,<device> and "uio" is not a vendor (and never will be).
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram = {
> > + .probe = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_probe,
> > + .remove = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_remove,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = DRIVER_NAME,
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > + .of_match_table = uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match,
> > + },
> > +};
>
> Greg's comment notwithstanding, I really don't think this belongs in the
> device tree (and if I do get overruled on that point, it at least needs a
> binding document). Let me try to come up with a patch for dynamic allocation.
Agreed. "UIO" bindings have long been rejected.
Rob
