On 06/21/2013 07:18 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:15:29PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
from a quick check of the patch set (which you forgot to send to LKML)
I am wondering why you didn't update the of matches struct with the new
compatible for "marvell,mv78230-i2c"? This will save you from still
having "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c" as additional compatible to match device
and driver. With that the above should also be s/and/or/.
Agree, I noticed the same things.
Alos, the compatible string should be:
compatible = "marvell,mv78230-i2c", "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c";
(note the order reversal, most specific is first)
Actually, I suggest to use "marvell,mv78230-i2c" alone. With a new
entry in the match table it will be sufficient for matching driver and
device. BTW, is mv78230 sufficient to match all SoC variants having
this feature? Maybe mv78xx0 but that could interfere with Discovery
Innovation or even better armada-xp-i2c (or armada-370-i2c)?
and I think it is better to use the 'data' field of of_device_id than
a of_is_compatible call. The former is sensitive to order of the
compatible string, the latter is not.
IMHO as long as there is only one compatible and only a bool to set,
using of_device_is_compatible without data pointer is fine here.
IIRC sunxi i2c isn't using data pointer the different register offset
struct, so we shouldn't for a simple bool. And casting a bool to
(void *) looks awkward.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
