[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200826165552.GK4965@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:55:52 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>,
kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@...esoftware.com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@....com>,
Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@....com>,
Tanveer Alam <tanveer.alam@...esoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Add ACPI support
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:47:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:23:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > { "NXP0005", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&devtype_data[LS2085A], }
> > Based on some other stuff I've seen with ACPI on NXP stuff it looks like
> > they're following the same scheme but only caring about that one SoC for
> > the time being.
> So, no argument about caring only about ACPI on one particular SoC for
> the time being, but there's a big difference between a solution that
> works for N=1 and one that works for N=2...
> Showing my ignorance here, but is there something equivalent to
> of_machine_is_compatible() for ACPI?
The NXP0005 is the ACPI equivalent of a compatible (comprehensibility is
not ACPI's forte) and they're tying driver data to it there.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists