* Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 02:37 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > * Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2012 08:33 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> Add auxdata to instantiate the PWFM controller from a device tree,
> >>> include the corresponding nodes in the dtsi files for Tegra 20 and
> >>> Tegra 30 and add binding documentation.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> >> ...
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >>> +static struct of_device_id tegra_pwm_of_match[] = {
> >>> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pwm" },
> >>> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-pwm" },
> >>
> >> Could you swap those two lines, so that tegra30-pwm matches first. It
> >> makes no difference at present, but might in the future if the driver
> >> actually has to differentiate the two SoCs.
> >
> > I thought the matching order was determined by the compatible property in the
> > device tree, not the OF match table of the driver.
>
> At least logically, yes. However, of_match_device() appears to iterate
> over each match table entry, checking whether it matches any string in
> the compatible flag. Perhaps this could be considered a bug?
It certainly is counter-intuitive. Maybe Grant or Rob can comment?
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpNjIjVfJ5i6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
