[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130906105003.GB29403@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:50:03 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, lee.jones@...aro.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] max77693: added device tree support
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:08:39PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 of August 2013 18:53:34 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +static struct of_device_id max77693_dt_match[] = {
> > + {.compatible = "maxim,max77693"},
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +#endif
> As far as I'm aware of, you don't need explicit OF match table for I2C
> devices, because the I2C OF core can use the array of struct i2c_device_id
> pointed by .id_table field of struct i2c_driver.
> I'm not sure if a separate OF table isn't preferred, though, so your patch
> might be fine.
It's still good practice to explicitly define a binding since that
gives a vendor prefix and there are overlaps out there in chip vendor
namings - for example both Wolfson and Wondermedia use "WMxxxx".
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists