On 09/03/2013 03:20 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[...]
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +/* use the platform_device id table for OF match table data */
>> +static struct of_device_id pwm_of_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa25x-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0] },
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa27x-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[1] },
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa168-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[2] },
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa910-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[3] },
>> + { }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pwm_of_match);
>
> Are PXA2xx and PXA3xx PWM impleemntations not all the same ? If so, why not just
> stick with pxa25x-pwm only for all of the CPUs (aka. the lowest CPU model). Then
> the table would have but a single entry.
I'm just echoing the existing platform_device_id table...
static const struct platform_device_id pwm_id_table[] = {
/* PWM has_secondary_pwm? */
{ "pxa25x-pwm", 0 },
{ "pxa27x-pwm", HAS_SECONDARY_PWM },
{ "pxa168-pwm", 0 },
{ "pxa910-pwm", 0 },
{ },
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, pwm_id_table);
... so that my changes to the driver are minimal. Yes, apparently the only
difference is the existance of a "secondary" pwm for pxa27x.
BTW, the pxa27x actually has four pwms, which is why the addition I made to
pxa27x.dtsi has two nodes (the driver handles two pwms for each device instance
in the pxa27x case).
Thanks Marek.
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
