From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: josh.wu@atmel.com (Josh Wu)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:21:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function
In-Reply-To: <559FEED3.5080505@atmel.com>
References: <1436436947-11210-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com>
 <20150710060350.GA3127@piout.net> <559F7AC4.6050008@atmel.com>
 <20150710120907.GC3127@piout.net> <20150710123148.GA28632@lukather>
 <559FEED3.5080505@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <55A32EC8.4080309@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 7/11/2015 12:12 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Le 10/07/2015 14:31, Maxime Ripard a ?crit :
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2015 at 15:56:52 +0800, Josh Wu wrote :
>>>> I would agree with Maxime. Currently all latest chip reset function is
>>>> compatible with the atmel,sama5d3-rstc.
>>>> So check compatible string is enough for now.
>>>> But of cause if we have other incompatible reset in future with new chip,
>>>> the structure like you said is needed.
>>> We managed to avoid using of_machine_is_compatible() in all the at91
>>> drivers. I'd like to keep it that way. It was painful enough to remove
>>> all those cpu_is_at91xxx calls.
>> That's your call...
>>
>>> Also, using it is trying to match strings and will result in longer boot
>>> times.
>> Have you looked at the implementation of of_match_device? If that's
>> really a concern to you, you should actually avoid it.
> I agree: let's keep it simple and use of_match_device().

Ok. I will keep it as it is now:  use the (match->data != 
sama5d3_restart) for the condition.

About the of_match_device(), I prefer to keep not changing the code and 
still use of_match_node().
Since of_match_device() is a wrapper for the of_match_node(). And 
dev->of_node and at91_reset_of_match is valid, so we can just use 
of_match_node() directly.

Is it sound okay for us?

Best Regards,
Josh Wu

>
> Bye,