[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve1daNFe4PLAMpqMudE9d+Ss2JpeZ=Sy5x5ij99gAVs_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:06 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] i2c: pca-platform: use device_property_read_u32
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> > - i2c->algo_data.i2c_clock = 59000;
>> > + ret = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "clock-frequency",
>> > + &i2c->algo_data.i2c_clock);
>> > + if (ret)
>> > + i2c->algo_data.i2c_clock = 59000;
>>
>> My idea is to get rid of legacy platform data completely.
>> That's why I suggested device_* in the first place.
>>
>> In similar way like you did with GPIO lookup table, you may use
>> PROPERTY_ENTRY*() macros in the board files.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>
> Frankly, I am not a big fan of converting board files if we cannot test
> the changes.
So, if no one is using that old boards, should we really take care
more than just compile test?
P.S. Legacy platform data makes a burden of development nowadays.
Built-in device properties API (as a part of Unified Device
Properties) is exactly for getting rid of legacy stuff and make things
much cleaner.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists