On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:20:08 +0100, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:28:20PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 04 Jun 2014, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:37:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 01:09:56 PM Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > Currently this is a helper function for the I2C subsystem to aid the
> > > > > > matching of non-standard compatible strings and devices which use DT
> > > > > > and/or ACPI, but do not supply any nodes (see: [1] Method 4). However,
> > > > > > it has been made more generic as it can be used to only make one call
> > > > > > for drivers which support any mixture of OF, ACPI and/or I2C matching.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The initial aim is for of_match_device() to be replaced by this call
> > > > > > in all I2C device drivers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] Documentation/i2c/instantiating-devices
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Mika, can you please have a look at this, please?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any fundamental problems with this wrt. ACPI.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I find it kind of weird to have generic function that then
> > > > has knowledge of how different buses do their matching.
> > > >
> > > > I would rather see something like firmware_device_match(dev) that goes
> > > > and matches from DT/ACPI and leave bus specific match to happen internal
> > > > to that bus.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately that completely defeats the object of the patch. When a
> > > of_match_device() is invoked it solely looks up devices based on OF
> > > matching, but I2C is special in that devices can be registered via
> > > sysfs, thus will no have device node. If of_match_device() is called
> > > in one of these instances it will fail. The idea of this patch is to
> > > generify the matching into something does has the knowledge to firstly
> > > attempt a traditional match, and if that fails will fall back to a
> > > special i2c_{of,acpi}_match_device() which knows how to deal with
> > > node-less registration.
> >
> > OK, then but since this is now I2C specific, why call it device_match()
> > instead of something like i2c_device_match()? Or do you have plans to
>
> So in an early incarnation of the patch I did just that, and it might
> not actually be such a bad idea still - I'm open to other people's
> opinions on this.
>
> > add there more knowledge about other buses like SPI and PCI to name few?
>
> ... but yes, this is the new idea - that it can be expanded as required.
The whole point of this series is to deal with a special use case of i2c
that we don't need to support for the other bus types. We're having to
just through special hoops to make it work and I don't want to expand it
to other bus types if at all possible.
g.
> --
> Lee Jones
> Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
> Linaro.org â?? Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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
