[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361264161.333682302@f131.mail.ru>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:01 +0400
From: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
To: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re[4]: [PATCH v3] mfd: syscon: Add non-DT support
...
> >> >> struct regmap *syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible(const char *s)
> >> >> {
> >> >> struct device_node *syscon_np;
> >> >> struct regmap *regmap;
> >> >> + struct syscon *syscon;
> >> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> >>
> >> >> syscon_np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, s);
> >> >> - if (!syscon_np)
> >> >> + if (syscon_np) {
> >> >> + regmap = syscon_node_to_regmap(syscon_np);
> >> >> + of_node_put(syscon_np);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + return regmap;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> +
> >> >> + /* Fallback to search by id_entry.name string */
> >> >> + dev = driver_find_device(&syscon_driver.driver, NULL, (void *)s,
> >> >> + syscon_match_id);
> >> >> + if (!dev)
> >> >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >> >>
> >> >> - regmap = syscon_node_to_regmap(syscon_np);
> >> >> - of_node_put(syscon_np);
> >> >> + syscon = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> >>
> >> >> - return regmap;
> >> >> + return syscon->regmap;
> >> >> }
> >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible);
> >> >
> >> > Since you are not actually comparing the "compatible" property here,
> >> > I would suggest adding another function here,
> >>
> >> Yes, i also think like that.
> >
> > In this case we should provide two paths for drivers which can work as with DT
> > and without DT.
>
> Yes.
I still think the universal procedure is better for the driver.
> > In my case we can use platform_device_id.name field with
> > "compatible" string. My way in this case is transparency for driver which is
> > using "syscon".
> >
>
> Yes, but it also brings misleading and mass.
> And i wonder even the API can cover the two type of matches, the
> caller still can't use
> the only one name for two cases since the name is different.
> So it looks to me not make too much sense to provide only one API.
The previous version of the patch keep conformity to the name of
procedure ("compatible" field in platform_data)...
So, now I'm totally confused what we do with the search function.
---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists