On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 26 August 2011, David Gibson wrote:
> > > If you open code it this way then yes, it's silly. But what about
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > static struct of_device_id foodevice_of_match[] __devinitdata = {
> > > { .compatible = "foocorp,foodevice1234",
> > > .resource_names = {"base_regs", "extra_regs", }, },
> > > { .compatible = "foocorp,foodevice1239",
> > > .resource_names = {"base_regs", "extra_regs", "more_regs", }, },
> > > { },
> > > };
> >
> > Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. This looks quite nice indeed. No objections
> > to this from my side.
> >
>
> Ah well, one objection on second thought:
>
> This assumes that there is just one type of resource, but named resources
> may be used for iomem, ioport and irq resources. If you have multiple
> IRQs and multiple IOMEM resources, I don't see how the index in the
> resource_names array can be used for both of them.
Details, shmetails, so you have both 'reg_names' and 'interrupt_names'.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
