[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimFnfgiQ5aMq_KwqHP8p92pjOJJwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:58:25 +1000
From: John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hjk@...sjkoch.de, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] uio/pdrv_genirq: Add OF support
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> For example with "uio" compatible string:
>> static const struct of_device_id __devinitconst uio_of_genirq_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "uio", },
>> { /* empty for now */ },
>> };
>
> Please use a proper example with "vendor,device".
> (And after that it won't be empty anymore)
My vote is, and always has been 'generic-uio' :)
Putting some random vendor/device string in there is just nuts. Do you
really want a kernel patch every time some one binds their device to
it?
Or, is there no expectation that anybody would attempt to merge such a
pointless patch to begin with?
As we discussed at ELC, putting a real vendor/device in there is also
broken because all instances in the system wil bind to the generic
uio, which is not necessarily what is desired.
I know the arguments against the 'generic-uio' tag, but come on, let's
look at the lesser of two evils here! I call BS on this DTS purity.
John
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists