From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: spjoshi@codeaurora.org (Sarangdhar Joshi)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:07:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v2 01/17] rpmsg: Enable matching devices with drivers
 based on DT
In-Reply-To: <20160909043012.GE405@tuxbot>
References: <1472768889-3906-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
 <1472768889-3906-2-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
 <eaf4753b0be45873adf29f04cb315e02@codeaurora.org>
 <20160909043012.GE405@tuxbot>
Message-ID: <55c39363-5849-3185-87bc-a84472329374@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 09/08/2016 09:30 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 07 Sep 18:46 PDT 2016, spjoshi at codeaurora.org wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-01 15:27, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> Make it possible to match rpmsg devices based on device tree node, in
>>> addition to the id table. In some of these cases the rpmsg driver would
>>> not have a id_table, so make this optional.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - None
>>>
>>> drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 10 ++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
>>> b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
>>> index 4a4374cc6a59..495fa0a282d3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/wait.h>
>>> #include <linux/rpmsg.h>
>>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>
>>> /**
>>>  * struct virtproc_info - virtual remote processor state
>>> @@ -175,11 +176,12 @@ static int rpmsg_dev_match(struct device *dev,
>>> struct device_driver *drv)
>>> 	const struct rpmsg_device_id *ids = rpdrv->id_table;
>>> 	unsigned int i;
>>>
>>> -	for (i = 0; ids[i].name[0]; i++)
>>> -		if (rpmsg_id_match(rpdev, &ids[i]))
>>> -			return 1;
>>> +	if (ids)
>>> +		for (i = 0; ids[i].name[0]; i++)
>>> +			if (rpmsg_id_match(rpdev, &ids[i]))
>>> +				return 1;
>>>
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return of_driver_match_device(dev, drv);
>>
>> Do we care falling back to acpi_driver_match_device if
>> of_driver_match_device fails (something similar to what platform_match
>> does)?
>>
>
> I'm not sure how this would look in the case of ACPI, so I would prefer
> if we defer that until such case arise.

Makes sense.

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>

Adding Reviewed-by tag:

Reviewed-by: Sarangdhar Joshi <spjoshi@codeaurora.org>

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project