From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:39:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: mvebu: Add quirk for i2c
In-Reply-To: <52CD5BBA.4080600@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>
 <20140107183853.GE4227@obsidianresearch.com> <20140107230610.GB2592@katana>
 <52CD2529.6090206@free-electrons.com> <20140108112926.GB2669@katana>
 <52CD4CBE.6010902@free-electrons.com> <20140108133958.GA15182@katana>
 <52CD5BBA.4080600@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <52CEB4BF.4040108@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 08/01/2014 15:07, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
> 
> On 08/01/2014 14:39, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like "marvell,offload-broken" would be acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> A tad more, yes. Still, since this is a feature/quirk of the IP core
>>>> revision, it should be deduced from the compatible property IMO. It
>>>> cannot be configured anywhere, so it doesn't change on board level.
>>>
>>> So you would prefer using the "marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c" comaptible string and
>>> updating it with the follwing piece of code?
>>
>> This is the approach I favour, yes. Can't say much about the
>> implementation. Looks OK, but dunno if this is minimal...
> 
> Allocating memory in each loop could seem convoluted. In my first approach
> I just used a static struct but I got warning during boot about duplicated
> node. It seems we can use the same property struct for two different nodes.

Oh! I just meant the opposite: " It seems  we can NOT use the same property
struct for two different nodes."


> 
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com