On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Yaniv,
>
> 2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> @@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - hba->vops = get_variant_ops(&pdev->dev);
>> + err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>> + if (err)
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> + "%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n", __func__);
>> +
>> + ufs_variant_node = of_get_next_available_child(node, NULL);
>> +
>> + if (!ufs_variant_node) {
>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to find ufs_variant_node child\n");
>> + } else {
>> + ufs_variant_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(ufs_variant_node);
>> +
>> + if (ufs_variant_pdev)
>> + hba->vops = (struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *)
>> + dev_get_drvdata(&ufs_variant_pdev->dev);
>> + }
>
> I have no strong objection to 'ufs_variant' sub-node. But why can't we
> simply add an of_device_id to ufs_of_match, like below:
But I do have objections on both the naming and having a sub-node.
>
> static const struct of_device_id ufs_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "jedec,ufs-1.1"},
> #if IS_ENABLED(SCSI_UFS_QCOM)
> { .compatible = "qcom,ufs", .data = &ufs_hba_qcom_vops },
Be more specific: qcom,<socname>-ufs
> #neidf
Drop the ifdef.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
