On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:22:51PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:10:16PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > @@ -840,7 +840,7 @@
> > > };
> > >
> > > mmdc0: mmdc@021b0000 { /* MMDC0 */
> > > - compatible = "fsl,imx6q-mmdc";
> > > + compatible = "fsl,imx6q-mmdc", "fsl,mmdc";
> >
> > This is not nice. Here you introduce a fsl,mmdc compatible claiming all
> > mmdc are compatible to each other and in the driver code you have:
> >
> > static const u32 imx6q_mmdc_io_dsm_offset[]
> > static const u32 imx6dl_mmdc_io_dsm_offset[]
> >
> > which proves they are *not* compatible.
> >
> > You do this just to share a
> >
> > imx6_pm_get_base(&pm_info->mmdc_base, "fsl,mmdc");
> >
> > across the different i.MX6 SoCs.
> >
> > You can sanitize this by introducing a SoC struct which you populate
> > differently for the SoCs
> >
> > static pm_soc_data imx6q_data {
> > .mmdc_compat = "fsl,imx6q-mmdc",
> > };
> >
> > And by putting cpu_type, mmdc_io_num and others in this struct you can
> > also remove the if(cpu_is_x()) else if (cpu_is_y()) else...
>
> Good point.
>
> Anson, the change below is a demonstration of Sascha's suggestion.
> Sascha, correct me if I misunderstood your comment.
Looks good. That's exactly what I meant. Maybe the cpu_type field can
even be removed the way you did it.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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
