On Tuesday 29 December 2015 14:59:59 Florian Fainelli wrote: > On December 27, 2015 11:22:20 PM PST, Xing Zheng <zhengxing at rock-chips.com> wrote: > >The RK3036's GRFs offset are different with RK3066/RK3188, and need to > >set > >mac TX/RX clock before probe emac. > > > >Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing at rock-chips.com> > >--- > <snip> > > }; > > > > static const struct of_device_id emac_rockchip_dt_ids[] = { > >- { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data = > >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] }, > >- { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data = > >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] }, > >+ { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3036-emac", .data = > >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] }, > >+ { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data = > >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] }, > >+ { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data = > >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[2] }, > > { /* Sentinel */ } > > Food for thought, you might want to use an enum here to index emac_rockchip_dt_data which would be less error prone if you add/remove entries in this structure. > I would use named structures instead: static const struct emac_rockchip_soc_data emac_rk3066_emac_data = { .grf_offset = 0x154, }; static const struct of_device_id emac_rockchip_dt_ids[] = { { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data = &emac_rk3066_emac_data, ... }; Armd