From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: x0148406@ti.com (Afzal Mohammed) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:33:35 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v4 3/5] rtc: omap: dt support In-Reply-To: <5084523F.2070800@gmail.com> References: <061c670b0a05570d7b83d8a8f105ee5b35583f7f.1350633036.git.afzal@ti.com> <5084523F.2070800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <508E3857.6080109@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Daniel, On Monday 22 October 2012 01:21 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 19.10.2012 11:59, Afzal Mohammed wrote: >> +static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = { >> + { .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", >> + .data =&omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX], > Wouldn't it make sense to list all the compatible models here? The > advantage of a compatible list is that we can name the models > explicitly, or maybe at least "davinci-rtc". Is there any reason for > this particular name? Exact name followed by compatible models needs to be specified in DT node only, right ? (when driver for the first variant can handle it) And when additional features of newer IP's has to be leveraged, new entries can be added in the driver match table. First known variant of SoC for DT is da830 (exact name), hence it was used. Regards Afzal From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Afzal Mohammed Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] rtc: omap: dt support Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:33:35 +0530 Message-ID: <508E3857.6080109@ti.com> References: <061c670b0a05570d7b83d8a8f105ee5b35583f7f.1350633036.git.afzal@ti.com> <5084523F.2070800@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5084523F.2070800-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: Errors-To: davinci-linux-open-source-bounces+gld-davinci-linux-open-source=gmane.org-VycZQUHpC/PFrsHnngEfi1aTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: Kevin Hilman , Alessandro Zummo , davinci-linux-open-source-VycZQUHpC/PFrsHnngEfi1aTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org, Russell King , rtc-linux-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Rob Landley , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On Monday 22 October 2012 01:21 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 19.10.2012 11:59, Afzal Mohammed wrote: >> +static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = { >> + { .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", >> + .data =&omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX], > Wouldn't it make sense to list all the compatible models here? The > advantage of a compatible list is that we can name the models > explicitly, or maybe at least "davinci-rtc". Is there any reason for > this particular name? Exact name followed by compatible models needs to be specified in DT node only, right ? (when driver for the first variant can handle it) And when additional features of newer IP's has to be leveraged, new entries can be added in the driver match table. First known variant of SoC for DT is da830 (exact name), hence it was used. Regards Afzal From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757770Ab2J2IEm (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:04:42 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:49862 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755442Ab2J2IEi (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:04:38 -0400 Message-ID: <508E3857.6080109@ti.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:33:35 +0530 From: Afzal Mohammed User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Mack CC: Andrew Morton , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sekhar Nori , Kevin Hilman , Russell King , Alessandro Zummo , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] rtc: omap: dt support References: <061c670b0a05570d7b83d8a8f105ee5b35583f7f.1350633036.git.afzal@ti.com> <5084523F.2070800@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5084523F.2070800@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On Monday 22 October 2012 01:21 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 19.10.2012 11:59, Afzal Mohammed wrote: >> +static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = { >> + { .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", >> + .data =&omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX], > Wouldn't it make sense to list all the compatible models here? The > advantage of a compatible list is that we can name the models > explicitly, or maybe at least "davinci-rtc". Is there any reason for > this particular name? Exact name followed by compatible models needs to be specified in DT node only, right ? (when driver for the first variant can handle it) And when additional features of newer IP's has to be leveraged, new entries can be added in the driver match table. First known variant of SoC for DT is da830 (exact name), hence it was used. Regards Afzal