On 22/11/16 01:43, Frank Rowand wrote:
Hi Sekhar, (And adding Sudeep since he becomes involved in this further down thread and at that point says he will re-work this proposed work around in a manner that is incorrect in a manner that is similar to this proposed work around.) On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
[...]
static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { const struct da8xx_ddrctl_config_knob *knob; @@ -118,7 +130,7 @@ static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) setting = da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings(); if (!setting) { dev_err(dev, "no settings for board '%s'\n", - of_flat_dt_get_machine_name());da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings() tries to match based on the "compatible" property in the root node. The "model" property in the root node has nothing to do with the failure to match. So creating and then using da8xx_ddrctl_get_machine_name() to potentially report model is not useful. It should be sufficient to simply report that no compatible matched.
Agreed. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
