[PATCH v5 09/16] pwm: tegra: Add device tree support

[robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)]

On 04/03/2012 12:55 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * Stephen Warren wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> It certainly is counter-intuitive. Maybe Grant or Rob can comment?

I think the rule should be the match list is most specific to least
specific and/or mutually exclusive like compatible strings. Most
examples with multiple entries in the kernel seem to fall into the
mutually exclusive case.

For this case, I think would just drop tegra30-pwm altogether and only
add it to the driver when you need to distinguish between the 2. The dts
should have both though for Tegra3.

Rob