On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 11:13 -0800, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> This adds device tree support for rfkill-gpio. The optional platform
> paramters gpio_runtime_close and gpio_runtime_setup are not implemented.
>
> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rhyland Klein <rklein@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Dietrich <marvin24@xxxxxx>
> +
> static int rfkill_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct rfkill_gpio_data *rfkill;
> struct rfkill_gpio_platform_data *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> int ret = 0;
> int len = 0;
>
> + if (np)
> + pdata = rfkill_gpio_parse_pdata(pdev);
> +
The only concern I have is the precedence of devicetree settings vs
platform data settings? If there is pdata passed in from board file
initialization, and there is a device tree (a corner case but I think a
valid one) then I believe the order would be that defined pdata would
override the devicetree settings. That way if someone wanted to make a
quick update, they wouldn't need to change the boot loader as well.
> if (!pdata) {
> pr_warn("%s: No platform data specified\n", __func__);
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -217,6 +273,7 @@ static struct platform_driver rfkill_gpio_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "rfkill_gpio",
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(of_rfkill_gpio_match),
> },
> };
>
-rhyland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
