On 08/01/2014 15:07, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On 08/01/2014 14:39, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Something like "marvell,offload-broken" would be acceptable? >>>> >>>> A tad more, yes. Still, since this is a feature/quirk of the IP core >>>> revision, it should be deduced from the compatible property IMO. It >>>> cannot be configured anywhere, so it doesn't change on board level. >>> >>> So you would prefer using the "marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c" comaptible string and >>> updating it with the follwing piece of code? >> >> This is the approach I favour, yes. Can't say much about the >> implementation. Looks OK, but dunno if this is minimal... > > Allocating memory in each loop could seem convoluted. In my first approach > I just used a static struct but I got warning during boot about duplicated > node. It seems we can use the same property struct for two different nodes. Oh! I just meant the opposite: " It seems we can NOT use the same property struct for two different nodes." > >> > > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html