On 5/15/23 12:24, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Mon, May 15, 2023 at 02:31:53PM +0800, Jiawen Wu kirjoitti:
Wangxun 10Gb ethernet chip is connected to Designware I2C, to communicate
with SFP.
Introduce the property "snps,i2c-platform" to match device data for Wangxun
in software node case. Since IO resource was mapped on the ethernet driver,
add a model quirk to get regmap from parent device.
The exists IP limitations are dealt as workarounds:
- IP does not support interrupt mode, it works on polling mode.
- Additionally set FIFO depth address the chip issue.
...
dev->flags = (uintptr_t)device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
+ if (device_property_present(&pdev->dev, "snps,i2c-platform"))
+ dev->flags |= MODEL_WANGXUN_SP;
What I meant here is to use device_property_present() _iff_ you have decided to
go with the _vendor-specific_ property name.
Otherwise it should be handled differently, i.e. with reading the actual value
of that property. Hence it should correspond the model enum, which you need to
declare in the Device Tree bindings before use.
So, either
if (device_property_present(&pdev->dev, "wx,..."))
dev->flags |= MODEL_WANGXUN_SP;
or
if ((dev->flags & MODEL_MASK) == MODEL_NONE) {
// you now have to distinguish that there is no model set in driver data
u32 model;
ret = device_property_read_u32(dev, "snps,i2c-platform");
if (ret) {
...handle error...
}
dev->flags |= model
I'm not a device tree expert but I wonder would it be possible somehow
combine this and compatible properties in dw_i2c_of_match[]? They set
model flag for MODEL_MSCC_OCELOT and MODEL_BAIKAL_BT1.
Then I'm thinking is "snps,i2c-platform" descriptive enough name for a
model and does it confuse with "snps,designware-i2c" compatible property?
