From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:09:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCHv2 12/17] cpuidle: mvebu: make the cpuidle driver capable
 of handling multiple SoCs
In-Reply-To: <5251405.VTrfDi1rj5@wuerfel>
References: <1404913221-17343-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <52019695.n2AjkGEsJ7@wuerfel>
 <20140721133534.3415e425@free-electrons.com>
 <5251405.VTrfDi1rj5@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <20140721140917.16e71558@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Dear Arnd Bergmann,

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:00:22 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> I don't know, it really depends on what the differences are between
> the SoCs, and I haven't looked at them.
> 
> Using the compatible strings would make it work best if you have one
> driver per variant, and then share some common code, as opposed to
> having one shared driver with a number of exceptions.
> 
> If the differences are just a few parameters, it might be better
> to encode those parameters in DT properties instead.

The differences are in the cpuidle states that are supported, see
patches "cpuidle: mvebu: add Armada 370 support" and "cpuidle: mvebu:
add Armada 38x support" in the series.

I honestly believe that since cpuidle functionality is not described in
the Device Tree and therefore probed using a statically defined
platform_device, the good way to pass these informations is to simply
use platform_data.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com