On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:35:03PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > +static struct property i2c_offload_broken = {
> > + .name = "offload-broken",
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void __init i2c_quirk(void)
> > +{
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + u32 dev, rev;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Only revisons more recent than A0 support the offload
> > + * mechanism. We can exit only if we are sure that we can
> > + * get the SoC revision and it is more recent than A0.
> > + */
> > + if (mvebu_get_soc_id(&rev, &dev) == 0 && dev > MV78XX0_A0_REV)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + for_each_compatible_node(np, NULL, "marvell,mv78230-i2c")
> > + of_add_property(np, &i2c_offload_broken);
>
> I like this approach.
Sorry, but I don't.
> However, when I first read this I thought it should be a -a0 specific
> compatible string, not a 'offload-broken' property - any idea what the
> DT consensus is here? I've seen both approach in use ..
I prefer the replacement of the compatible string. If it should really
be a seperate property, then it should be a vendor specific property. It
is not generic, at all.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature