From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] I2C: MV64XXX: Add Device Tree support Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:52:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20120705065247.GL17534@lunn.ch> References: <1341325365-21393-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <2232439.93KkEvHiYj@flexo> <20120703165839.GA1519@lunn.ch> <1779200.JgQeyzoLkl@bender> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1779200.JgQeyzoLkl@bender> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, spi-devel-general-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:49:33PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > On Tuesday 03 July 2012 18:58:39 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:59:13PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > > > On Tuesday 03 July 2012 16:22:40 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > Extends the driver to get properties from device tree. Also extend the > > > > kirkwood DT support to supply the needed properties. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn > > > > --- > > > [snip] > > > > - if ((pd->id != 0) || !pdata) > > > > + if ((!pdata && !pd->dev.of_node) || (pdata && (pd->id != 0))) > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > This is more a reminder than a real remark, but the driver here should not > be > > > limiting us to a single platform_device. In fact kirkwood55 (88F6282) has > two > > > I2C controllers for instance. > > > > Yes, i don't understand this code. It looks impossible to use it using > > platform_data with more than one controller. Any idea why its like > > this? I didn't want to change the behavior because i don't understand > > why its like this. > > No idea, we just stumbled over this with a colleague the other day, and just > removing the check made our second I2C controller work, so I don't see any > reason why there is such a limitation. That said, this is for a subsequent > patch. If you submit a patch, please CC: me and i will ACK it, or test it etc, and try to sort out the merge conflicts with the DT patch. Thanks Andrew