On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:51 AM Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Am Montag, den 18.06.2018, 22:43 -0700 schrieb Andrey Smirnov:
> > > Some board designs copy i.MX51 Babbadge board's PMIC design and so
> > > require exactly the same initialization. Move correspoding code into a
> > > separate file, add new compatiblity string and make appropriate
> > > Kconfig change to allow other boards to share that code.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +static int imx51_babbage_power_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > > + if (!of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx51-babbage") &&
> > > > + !of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx51-babbage-power"))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > > + mc13xxx_register_init_callback(babbage_power_init);
> >
> > I think it would be better for the board code to explicitly call this
> > setup function. Gating this by DT compatible is a bit too much magic.
> >
>
> Where do you see magic here? There's nothing unusual in gating board
> initialization code on "compatible", it's used all over the place. And
> having multiple level of compatibility one of the intended use-cases
> of "compatible" property.
Better just export imx51_babbage_power_init (maybe with a better name)
and call it from your board code after having checked the compatible
strings. Putting "fsl,imx51-babbage-power" in your board dts in order to
run some hardware init code for hardware that happens to be the same as
parts of the babbage board, that's indeed magic.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
