Dear Mike Dunn,
> 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).
>
What's that "secondary PWM" there? I no longer remember, sorry. The question
remains still, we can have two entries there (pxa25x and pxa27x) ORR have one
entry (pxa25x) + mrvl,has-secondary-pwm entry.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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
