On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 09:42 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:58:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 10:31 +0800, 王文虎 wrote:
> > > Sounds it is. And does the modification below fit well?
> > > ---
> > > -static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
> > > - { .compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram", },
> > > - {},
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > > +static struct of_device_id uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[] = {
> > > + { /* This is filled with module_parm */ },
> > > + { /* Sentinel */ },
> > > };
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match);
> > > +module_param_string(of_id,
> > > uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[0].compatible,
> > > + sizeof(uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[0].c
> > > ompa
> > > tible), 0);
> > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(of_id, "platform device id to be handled by cache-
> > > sram-
> > > uio");
> > > +#endif
> >
> > No. The point is that you wouldn't be configuring this with the device
> > tree
> > at all.
>
> Wait, why not? Don't force people to use module parameters, that is
> crazy. DT describes the hardware involved, if someone wants to bind to
> a specific range of memory, as described by DT, why can't they do so?
Yes, DT describes the hardware, and as I've said a couple times already, this
isn't hardware description.
I'm not forcing people to use module parameters. That was a least-effort
suggestion to avoid abusing the DT. I later said I'd try to come up with a
patch that allocates regions dynamically (and most likely doesn't use UIO at
all).
> I can understand not liking the name "uio" in a dt tree, but there's no
> reason that DT can not describe what a driver binds to here.
The DT already describes this hardware, and there is already code that binds
to it. This patch is trying to add a second node for it with configuration.
-Scott
