Hi Wolfram,
On 08/01/2014 00:06, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:35:03PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>> +static struct property i2c_offload_broken = {
>>> + .name = "offload-broken",
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static void __init i2c_quirk(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>> + u32 dev, rev;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Only revisons more recent than A0 support the offload
>>> + * mechanism. We can exit only if we are sure that we can
>>> + * get the SoC revision and it is more recent than A0.
>>> + */
>>> + if (mvebu_get_soc_id(&rev, &dev) == 0 && dev > MV78XX0_A0_REV)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_compatible_node(np, NULL, "marvell,mv78230-i2c")
>>> + of_add_property(np, &i2c_offload_broken);
>>
>> I like this approach.
>
> Sorry, but I don't.
>
>> However, when I first read this I thought it should be a -a0 specific
>> compatible string, not a 'offload-broken' property - any idea what the
>> DT consensus is here? I've seen both approach in use ..
>
> I prefer the replacement of the compatible string. If it should really
> be a seperate property, then it should be a vendor specific property. It
> is not generic, at all.
Something like "marvell,offload-broken" would be acceptable?
Thanks,
Gregory
--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
