On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
>
> void harmony_pinmux_init(void);
> void seaboard_pinmux_init(void);
> -
> +void ventana_pinmux_init(void);
>
> struct of_dev_auxdata tegra20_auxdata_lookup[] __initdata = {
> OF_DEV_AUXDATA("nvidia,tegra20-sdhci", TEGRA_SDMMC1_BASE, "sdhci-tegra.0", NULL),
> @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ static void __init tegra_dt_init(void)
> harmony_pinmux_init();
> else if (of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,seaboard"))
> seaboard_pinmux_init();
> + else if (of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,ventana"))
> + ventana_pinmux_init();
Are you (Peter, Colin, Olof) confident that this is not getting out
of hand before it's getting better?
If we are keeping the per-board pinmux configuration in the kernel
for longer, I think it would be better to do this table-driven than
having a list of top-level of_machine_is_compatible() statements
and do something like:
static struct {
const char *machine;
struct tegra_pingroup_config *config[];
} pinmux_configs[] __initdata = {
{ "nvidia,ventana", &ventana_pinmux },
{ "nvidia,seaboard, &seaboard_pinmux },
};
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
