From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:07:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/amba: probe via device tree In-Reply-To: <4DDBC8C7.4000001@gmail.com> References: <1305829704-11774-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <20110519233958.GB18181@ponder.secretlab.ca> <4DD66B8A.5040404@gmail.com> <201105201621.03801.arnd@arndb.de> <4DD68614.6090209@gmail.com> <4DDA2AC0.1060406@gaisler.com> <20110523095829.GG17672@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4DDBC8C7.4000001@gmail.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 2011/5/24 Rob Herring : > I think having "arm,amba-deviceid" is not needed. The current code does > nothing but warn if it doesn't match the h/w value. The drivers already have > a list of id's that they support and the amba bus only matches against the > h/w id value. The only use I can see is overriding a broken h/w value. We have this usecase in the Ux500. See these patches: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6829/1 http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6830/1 Alas, it's not yet merged for the old boardfile world usecase, and causing us problems to drive our hardware already. Yours, Linus Walleij