On 11/01, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2016-11-01 3:15 GMT+09:00 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On 10/31, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> >> @@ -728,13 +780,19 @@ static int cdce925_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >> }
> >>
> >> static const struct i2c_device_id cdce925_id[] = {
> >> - { "cdce925", 0 },
> >> + { "cdce913", CDCE913 },
> >> + { "cdce925", CDCE925 },
> >> + { "cdce937", CDCE937 },
> >> + { "cdce949", CDCE949 },
> >> { }
> >> };
> >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, cdce925_id);
> >>
> >> static const struct of_device_id clk_cdce925_of_match[] = {
> >> + { .compatible = "ti,cdce913" },
> >> { .compatible = "ti,cdce925" },
> >> + { .compatible = "ti,cdce937" },
> >> + { .compatible = "ti,cdce949" },
> >
> > Doesn't this need to be updated to point to the correct enum
> > values?
>
> I think it isn't needed. Because the data field in struct of_device_id
> for this driver is not used even if the device is registered from
> device tree. But the driver_data in i2c_device_id is used instead.
Ok. Have you tested this driver with DT or platform data? Do you
prefix the compatible string with "ti," in the DT case?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
