Hi! > >>>> 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 Aha, ok, then the intr_type should be derived from compatible-string. Or rather... you should have three compatible-strings for the three possibilities? (And then subtype, currently unused, in case there are more hw differences). > 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. Ok, right... I'd vote for putting them into DT. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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