On 02/15/2018 11:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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 / ?
>
> Correct, cfr. the implementation of of_machine_is_compatible().
>
> BTW, several PPC platforms use of_device_compatible_match(of_root, ...),
> but I believe of_root is not guaranteed to be set up.
OK, subsequent patch then. Added to TODO.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
