From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:42:12 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v5 09/16] pwm: tegra: Add device tree support
In-Reply-To: <20120402083749.GA6576@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de>
References: <1332945238-14897-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>
 <1332945238-14897-10-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>
 <4F7602CD.2010808@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20120402083749.GA6576@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de>
Message-ID: <4F79C8D4.2000306@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/02/2012 02:37 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/28/2012 08:33 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> Add auxdata to instantiate the PWFM controller from a device tree,
>>> include the corresponding nodes in the dtsi files for Tegra 20 and
>>> Tegra 30 and add binding documentation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>
>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
>> ...
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>> +static struct of_device_id tegra_pwm_of_match[] = {
>>> +	{ .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pwm" },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-pwm" },
>>
>> Could you swap those two lines, so that tegra30-pwm matches first. It
>> makes no difference at present, but might in the future if the driver
>> actually has to differentiate the two SoCs.
> 
> I thought the matching order was determined by the compatible property in the
> device tree, not the OF match table of the driver.

At least logically, yes. However, of_match_device() appears to iterate
over each match table entry, checking whether it matches any string in
the compatible flag. Perhaps this could be considered a bug?