Hi Pavel, > >>>> The non-DT support has to be maintained for now to not break >>>> OMAP3 legacy boot, and the legacy-style code will be cleaned >>>> up once OMAP3 is also converted to DT-boot only. >>> >>>> @@ -587,24 +606,157 @@ static int omap_mbox_unregister(struct omap_mbox_device *mdev) >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap2_data = { >>>> + .num_users = 4, >>>> + .num_fifos = 6, >>>> + .intr_type = MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap3_data = { >>>> + .num_users = 2, >>>> + .num_fifos = 2, >>>> + .intr_type = MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data am335x_data = { >>>> + .num_users = 4, >>>> + .num_fifos = 8, >>>> + .intr_type = MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE2, >>>> +}; >>> >>> So you use compatible strings to look up 3 integers. Would it be better to have >>> num_users/num_fifos/intr_type directly in the device tree? That should be cleaner >>> and more flexible... >>> >>> If you do that, would it be possible to have share compatible string? >> >> Yeah, I have actually encoded the .num_users and .num_fifos in DT in the >> previous version [1] with shared compatible strings, but dropped those >> properties in favour of adding minimal custom properties to DT based on >> some offline IRC comments. I have no objections either way, but there is >> really nothing to be gained from minimizing compatible strings. > > Actually, I'd guess best solution would be to do both: have it encoded > in device tree _and_ have separate compatible string for each version > (in case there are other differences). You'd still get rid of the > table... Do note that the .intr_type has to with the register layout rather than a physical property (mainly to distinguish the pre-OMAP4 IP register layout), so I am not convinced that belongs to DT. This is the reason why I didn't represent it in DT even in the previous version. The other two are HW IP design parameters, so in general putting them in DT isn't completely a bad idea, but I will wait to see if there are any further comments on this from Tony or DT maintainers before I make changes. regards Suman -- 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