On Mon 09 Jan 00:36 PST 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
> > On Fri 06 Jan 01:53 PST 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 05 Jan 2017, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed 04 Jan 23:49 PST 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2017, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed 04 Jan 03:54 PST 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Implement support for initialization of the lm3533 driver core and
> > > > > > > > probing child devices from Device Tree.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -512,6 +514,11 @@ static int lm3533_device_init(struct lm3533 *lm3533)
> > > > > > > > lm3533_device_bl_init(lm3533);
> > > > > > > > lm3533_device_led_init(lm3533);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + if (lm3533->dev->of_node) {
> > > > > > > > + of_platform_populate(lm3533->dev->of_node, NULL, NULL,
> > > > > > > > + lm3533->dev);
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it's save to call of_platform_populate(), even if !of_node.
> > > > > > > It will just fail and return an error code, which you are ignoring
> > > > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought so too, but that's apparently how you trigger probing children
> > > > > > of the root node. So we're stuck with a conditional.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so this is to protect against the case where DT is present, but a
> > > > > node for this device is not (or is disabled), so is left unprobed.
> > > > > Then the bind is initiated via I2C? Or something else?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the event that a new lm3533 is spawned from sysfs we would not have
> > > > platform_data when entering lm3533_device_init() and just bail early.
> > > >
> > > > Therefor, this issue would be limited to the odd case of lm3533 being
> > > > initiated from code (e.g. a board file) on a DT enabled system. In which
> > > > case it will create and probe new devices from the root of the DT.
> > >
> > > Eewww, do we really want to support that?
> > >
> >
> > As long as we support non-DT probing of the driver this is a possible
> > scenario. And with modern ARM being DT-centric I think that if anyone
> > uses this driver with a modern version of the Linux kernel it's likely
> > that they would have this kind of hybrid solution.
> >
> > So, although ugly, I think we should keep this conditional and hope that
> > anyone using the driver will transition to use the DT binding.
>
> Very well, but can you add a comment describing the reason for its
> existence with a view to removing it further down the line?
>
Sounds reasonable, I will prepare an updated patch with this.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
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
