On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:35:06AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/20/2014 09:24 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>+
> >>+static const struct ahci_platform_data *ahci_get_pdata(struct device *dev)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct ahci_platform_data *pdata;
> >>+ const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> >>+
> >>+ pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
> >>+ if (pdata)
> >>+ return pdata;
> >>+
> >>+ of_id = of_match_device(ahci_of_match, dev);
> >>+ if (of_id)
> >>+ return of_id->data;
> >
> >I don't think it's a good idea to force of_id->data to be of type struct
> >struct ahci_platform_data *. With this we don't have a place to store
> >SoC specific data anymore.
>
> ?? ahci_platform_data *is* soc specific data, it allows various soc
> specific overrides.
I know, but it might not be enough for encding the slight differences
between i.MX53 and i.MX6. So you say then we would need to different
instances of struct ahci_platform_data, one for i.MX53 and one for
i.MX6. Ok, that works.
Overall I must say that I'm not really happy with giving up control over
the probe function and putting ahci_platform as a midlayer between the
SoC and the ahci lib. Just my 2 cents, if I'm the only one feel free to
ignore me, but maybe there are others that have the same feeling.
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
