Hi Sascha,
> >
> > Do you mean something like this attached patch?
>
> Yes
>
> > I preferred having the possibilty for assigning the id, so that boards
> > can have some expectations of what the device name will be.
>
> Generally a good idea, but how do you want to pass previd to the drivers
> using it? via platform_data? I haven't looked into it to see if this
> works well.
>
That's what I did for the at24, (although preferred_id would be a better name
than just id)
static struct at24_platform_data at24_data = {
.size = 2048 / 8,
.id = 1,
};
static int at24_probe(struct device_d *dev)
{
struct at24 *at24;
struct at24_platform_data *pdata;
at24 = xzalloc(sizeof(*at24));
dev->priv = at24;
pdata = dev->platform_data;
at24->cdev.name = make_cdev_name("eeprom", pdata->id);
at24->client = to_i2c_client(dev);
at24->cdev.size = pdata->size;
at24->cdev.dev = dev;
Maybe the platform data should have the preferred cdev name also? In the
example above, the driver just blindly calls it "eeprom", ie a more generic
term than "at24", the driver name.
If the desired end result is to have for example eeprom0, eeprom1 and eeprom2
cdevs all from potentially different drivers then I makes sense to also be
able to specify the "eeprom" part. (and then we'd probably want to pass in the
device_d* to make_cdev_name in case the user doesn't specify a cdev name - the
device name, and id, could be used).
Seems like too much thinking for so little code :)
Cheers,
Marc
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
