From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Shilimkar, Santosh)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:19:15 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v3 4/4] memory: emif: add device tree support to emif
 driver
In-Reply-To: <4FE947F7.9030000@ti.com>
References: <1339669764-27244-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <1339669764-27244-5-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <20120614154820.GG17140@kroah.com>
 <CAMQu2gx5CCDyrvozX06neBnA8J2heg+HL7DOewDm5voxqbpetw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMQu2gy7oj-+1qCteAFMXEeOL-Wdrs6e4gKWM=HsOukXcPuv-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120625182830.GA23850@kroah.com>
 <CAMQu2gxDG=69X7UQPUoTLP5h1ZLpHngp=3C4vSDOS6L-N2XZSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FE9467A.2050906@ti.com>
 <CAMQu2gzOszT54ZU0Z3-9k=mMM7yTCH_MCZV=gRKwGoGRj0zjaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FE947F7.9030000@ti.com>
Message-ID: <CAMQu2gwzFV-79CuEAmOHCZ7XivXrALjXkoB+J-QpgJkZ_PoRVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 June 2012 10:53 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@ti.com> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 26 June 2012 10:39 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+static const struct of_device_id emif_of_match[] = {
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+ ? ? ? ? ? ? { .compatible = "ti,emif-4d" },
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+ ? ? ? ? ? ? { .compatible = "ti,emif-4d5" },
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+ ? ? ? ? ? ? {},
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+};
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, emif_of_match);
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+#endif
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+
>>>>>>> ?> ? ? ?static struct platform_driver emif_driver = {
>>>>>>> ?> ? ? ? ? ? .remove ? ? ? ? = __exit_p(emif_remove),
>>>>>>> ?> ? ? ? ? ? .shutdown ? ? ? = emif_shutdown,
>>>>>>> ?> ? ? ? ? ? .driver = {
>>>>>>> ?> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .name = "emif",
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+ ? ? ? ? ? ? .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(emif_of_match),
>>>>>>> ?> ? ?+#endif
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Are these two still #if defined needed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Also, what about the IS_DEFINED macro?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. To avoid the build break in !DT build.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, infact of_match_ptr is there just so you can avoid a
>>> #ifdef around and not break !CONFIG_OF.
>>
>>
>> Need to recheck but the build was throwing error becasue of
>> "emif_of_match"
>> mostly.
>
>
> You still need the first one. I meant the second one around
> 'of_match_ptr' should be removed.
>
> With !CONFIG_OF, of_match_ptr(_ptr) is just defined as NULL.
>
Yep. That make sense too.
Will drop the second check.

regards
Santosh