From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 00:06:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: mvebu: Add quirk for i2c In-Reply-To: <20140107183853.GE4227@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1389112504-9931-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <1389112504-9931-3-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20140107183853.GE4227@obsidianresearch.com> Message-ID: <20140107230610.GB2592@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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. Sorry, but I don't. > 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 .. I prefer the replacement of the compatible string. If it should really be a seperate property, then it should be a vendor specific property. It is not generic, at all. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: