On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 03:03:31PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>
>> - s3c64xx_spi0_set_platdata(&s3c64xx_spi0_pdata, 0, 1);
>> + s3c64xx_spi0_set_platdata("s3c6410-spi", NULL, 0, 1);
>
> ...
>
>> + pd.src_clk_nr = src_clk_nr;
>> + pd.cfg_gpio = (cfg_gpio) ? cfg_gpio : s3c64xx_spi0_cfg_gpio;
>> + s3c64xx_device_spi0.name = dev_name;
>
> This looks *really* strange. Why do we need to pass in a name to set in
> s3c64xx_device_spi0's name, why would we want to use a different name?
> This dev_name also isn't equivalent to dev_name() which makes matters
> more confusing than they need to be.
>
> There was similar code for the I2C controllers which caused some really
> hard to debug brittleness.
Looks like they use the name as the magic string to pick initialization data.
I wonder if it makes more sense to keep the platform_data still
around, and just fill it in with the table (from patch "spi: s3c64xx:
move controller information into driver data") based on the OF
compatible field for the device-tree probe case, instead of trying to
overload and having to change the name in this way.
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
