From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:38:53 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: mvebu: Add quirk for i2c
In-Reply-To: <1389112504-9931-3-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
References: <1389112504-9931-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
 <1389112504-9931-3-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <20140107183853.GE4227@obsidianresearch.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:35:03PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> +static struct property i2c_offload_broken = {
> +	.name = "offload-broken",
> +};
> +
> +static void __init i2c_quirk(void)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *np;
> +	u32 dev, rev;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Only revisons more recent than A0 support the offload
> +	 * mechanism. We can exit only if we are sure that we can
> +	 * get the SoC revision and it is more recent than A0.
> +	 */
> +	if (mvebu_get_soc_id(&rev, &dev) == 0 && dev > MV78XX0_A0_REV)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for_each_compatible_node(np, NULL, "marvell,mv78230-i2c")
> +		of_add_property(np, &i2c_offload_broken);

I like this approach.

However, when I first read this I thought it should be a -a0 specific
compatible string, not a 'offload-broken' property - any idea what the
DT consensus is here? I've seen both approach in use ..

Jason