On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: > Hi all, > > Le 23/07/2015 14:50, Boris Brezillon a écrit : > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:13:11 +0100 > > Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> > >>> 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). > >> > >> I know what you're saying, but what if someone uses the Flexcom driver > >> to wrap a different type of SPI driver where (for instance) the > >> compatible string used is "<name>-<newtype>". Then we'd have to keep > >> adding more lines here to accommodate. > >> > >> Whereas if we used the child node name which only pertains to _this_ > >> driver, we would then have full control and know that (unless it > >> Flexcom is used for a completely different type of serial controller) > >> we wouldn't have to keep expanding the code to accommodate. > > > > You're right about the complexity implied by the compat string > > maintenance, but I still think using node names to detect the mode is > > a bad idea. > > > > Let's take another example making both solution unsuitable: what if > > the flexcom-v2 exposes 2 devices of the same type, they will both have > > the same name and the same compatible string, and we'll have no way to > > detect the appropriate mode. That's why I think none of our suggestion > > is future-proof. > > > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> You mean duplicate each of the supported device's compatible strings > >> in this driver, then fetch the attributed of_match_device()->data > >> value? > >> > > > > Yes, and that's definitely not a good idea, but I think Cyrille has > > found a better approach (I'll let him explain). > > Indeed, what about taking advantage of the "ranges" property? > > For the Flexcom: > #address-cells = <2>; > #size-cells = <1>; > ranges = <1 0 0xf8034200 0x200 /* opmode 1: USART */ > 2 0 0xf8034400 0x200 /* opmode 2: SPI */ > 3 0 0xf8034600 0x200>; /* opmode 3: I2C */ > > Then for the single available child (for instance the SPI controller): > reg = <2 0 0x200>; > > So the Operating Mode to be set into the Flexcom Mode Register is read from > the very first u32 of the "reg" property of the child. > > No need to introduce any new DT property and the mapping remains easy to > maintain to follow hardware upgrades. When we do things like this we normally do: reg <base base_size>, <mode mode_size>; reg-names "base", "mode"; Then use: platform_get_resource_byname() .... to fetch them. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ 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