On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:01:05AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 21 May 2015 at 09:25, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (trim CC a bit, as this is no longer a DT binding question) > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:12:25AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> On 20 May 2015 at 23:35, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:27:50AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> >> On 19 May 2015 at 03:34, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > So how about the following patch? It seems like we'll need to be able to > >> >> > ignore useless 'modalias' values in cases like this: > >> >> > > >> >> > // modalias = "shinynewdevice" > >> >> > compatible = "myvendor,shinynewdevice", "jedec,spi-nor"; > >> >> > > >> >> > and also if somebody leaves off the entire shinynewdevice string: > >> >> > > >> >> > // modalias = "spi-nor" > >> >> > compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; > >> >> > > >> >> > So we rework the spi-nor library to not reject "bad" names, and just > >> >> > fall back to autodetection, and we add the .of_match_table to properly > >> >> > catch all "jedec,spi-nor". > >> >> > >> >> That's nice but what about platforms using platform data instead of > >> >> DT? I would like to use some kind of "spi-nor" (with some prefix > >> >> *maybe*) for them too. > >> > > >> > For platform devices, you might as well just use the name of the driver, > >> > which is 'm25p80'. Isn't that how most platform devices are matched with > >> > drivers? > >> > >> Yes and I think it's ugly because it keeps causing the warning about > >> read flash model not matching specified one (m25p80). > > > > Sure, I agree. > > > >> Are you > >> seriously not going to allow platform stuff *clearly* request flash > >> model detection (JEDEC RDID OP)? Just because they don't use DT? > > > > No, this isn't about "allowing" anything. It's just that my primary > > concern was to get the DT binding straightened out properly. Linus' > > current tree now has the proper binding, but the m25p80.c code doesn't > > quite bind properly. It will work if "jedec,spi-nor" is the first > > entry in the compatible property (and so it becomes the 'modalias', but > > not second, third, etc. So my patch fixes that properly. > > > > Now, the secondary concern is that you want platform devices to specify > > something generic, and that doesn't yield a "found X, expected Y" > > message. I'm perfectly fine with fixing that too, if you have a patch > > for it. What do you propose? > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was going to start using struct > flash_platform_data with > .type = "spi-nor", > but your proposed patch removes support for such name. Ah, OK. So that's the part I was overlooking. > While I like matching DT *clearly* against the whole "jedec,spi-nor" > string (really, I'm all for it), I'm confused what I should use for > platform stuff now. I don't have any proposal as my initial plan was > exactly to use this "spi-nor". > I guess I don't want to re-add support for "spi-nor" (as you just > proposed to remove it), I wasn't really trying to remove "spi-nor", that was mostly a side effect. > so I think I have to bounce the question: what > alternative do you propose? I think your comments suggest that I shouldn't be removing "spi-nor" from m25p_ids[] nor from this block: if (data && data->type) flash_name = data->type; else if (!strcmp(spi->modalias, "spi-nor")) flash_name = NULL; /* auto-detect */ else flash_name = spi->modalias; So it stays in both m25p_ids[] and .of_match_table. I suppose that can work. It then allows people to do weird stuff like: compatible = "idontknowwhatimdoing,spi-nor"; in their device tree. But other than that, there's not much downside I don't think. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html