[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111108152343.GJ20728@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:23:46 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Cc: balbi@...com, Nikolaus Voss <n.voss@...nmann.de>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
khali@...ux-fr.org, rmallon@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 04:15:10PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/08/2011 03:41 PM, Felipe Balbi :
>
> >> + if (cpu_is_at91rm9200()) { /* AT91RM9200 Errata #22 */
> >
> > I don't think you should be using cpu_is_* on drivers.
>
> It is a common pattern in at91 drivers and has worked for ages.
> Do you think it is related to the need to be able to compile the
> driver for any SoC in the case of multi-SoC zImage support?
we have drivers compiling on multiple OMAP versions without those hacks.
Generally, we check the IP revision for that. Don't you have a Revision
register of some sort ?
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists