Hi Lee,
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:32:17 +0100
Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> > + for_each_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + const char *compatible;
> > + int cplen;
> > +
> > + if (!of_device_is_available(child))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + compatible = of_get_property(child, "compatible", &cplen);
> > + if (!compatible || strlen(compatible) > cplen)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (strstr(compatible, "-usart")) {
> > + opmode = FLEX_MR_OPMODE_USART;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (strstr(compatible, "-spi")) {
> > + opmode = FLEX_MR_OPMODE_SPI;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (strstr(compatible, "-i2c")) {
> > + opmode = FLEX_MR_OPMODE_TWI;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> From what I understand Flexcom is a wrapper which can sit above any
> number of SPI, I2C and/or UART devices. Devices which you don't
> really have any control over (source code wise). So wouldn't it be
> better to match on the details you do have control over i.e. the node
> name, rather than the compatible string?
>
> I would personally match on of_find_node_by_name() to future-proof
> your implementation.
Actually, I think using compatible strings is more future-proof than
using the node names, because nothing in the DT bindings doc enforce the
node name, and usually what we use to attach a node to a specific
driver is the compatible string (this one is specified in the bindings
doc).
Regarding the implementation itself, I would match the child node with
an of_device_id table rather than trying to find a specific substring
in the compatible string, but I think that's only a matter of taste.
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
