On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Rhyland Klein <rklein@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that is how other drivers tend to be coded -- only of pdata is
null will the driver try to fill in from the DT.
-Olof
--
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
