Hi Wolfram, On 08/01/2014 14:39, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> A tad more, yes. Still, since this is a feature/quirk of the IP core >>> revision, it should be deduced from the compatible property IMO. It >>> cannot be configured anywhere, so it doesn't change on board level. >> >> So you would prefer using the "marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c" comaptible string and >> updating it with the follwing piece of code? > > This is the approach I favour, yes. Can't say much about the > implementation. Looks OK, but dunno if this is minimal... Allocating memory in each loop could seem convoluted. In my first approach I just used a static struct but I got warning during boot about duplicated node. It seems we can use the same property struct for two different nodes. > -- 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
