On 02/14/2018 09:09 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> - * The r8a7790/lager and r8a7791/koelsch development boards have da9063 and
>>> - * da9210 regulators. Both regulators have their interrupt request lines tied
>>> - * to the same interrupt pin (IRQ2) on the SoC.
>>> + * The r8a7790/lager,stout and r8a7791/koelsch development boards have da9063
>>> + * and da9210 regulators. Both regulators have their interrupt request lines
>>> + * tied to the same interrupt pin (IRQ2) on the SoC.
>>
>> I think listing the boards here doesn't scale well. Gose is already
>> missing. How about rephrasing the paragraph to something like "Some Gen2
>> development boards have..."?
>
> +1
>
>>> *
>>> * After cold boot or da9063-induced restart, both the da9063 and da9210 seem
>>> * to assert their interrupt request lines. Hence as soon as one driver
>>> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
>>>
>>> if (!of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,koelsch") &&
>>> !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,lager") &&
>>> + !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,stout") &&
>>> !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,gose"))
>>> return -ENODEV;
>
> Have we reached critical mass to start using array-based matching with
> of_device_compatible_match()?
We're matching on machine , not device , here . I guess our device node
would be / ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
