From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] watchdog: omap_wdt: add device tree support Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:30:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC63D03.8080501@ti.com> References: <1337942552-28218-1-git-send-email-jgq516@gmail.com> <1337942552-28218-4-git-send-email-jgq516@gmail.com> <4FC51008.1050004@ti.com> <4FC59171.8040009@gmail.com> <4FC5D21F.2030702@ti.com> <4FC636C9.2050902@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FC636C9.2050902@ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, rnayak@ti.com, Xiao Jiang , rob.herring@calxeda.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, wim@iguana.be, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Jon, On 5/30/2012 5:03 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > Hi Benoit, > > On 05/30/2012 02:54 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >> On 5/30/2012 5:18 AM, Xiao Jiang wrote: >>> Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> On 05/25/2012 05:42 AM, jgq516@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> From: Xiao Jiang >>>>> >>>>> Add device table for omap_wdt to support dt. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Jiang >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c >>>>> index 8285d65..d98c615 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c >>>>> @@ -430,6 +430,13 @@ static int omap_wdt_resume(struct >>>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>>> #define omap_wdt_resume NULL >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id omap_wdt_of_match[] = { >>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,omap3-wdt", }, >>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,omap4-wdt", }, >> >> If there is no difference between the OMAP3 and the OMAP4 WDT IP, just >> add one entry "ti,omap3-wdt". And then in the OMAP4 DTS you will just >> put : compatible = "ti,omap3-wdt"; or compatible = "ti,omap4-wdt", >> "ti,omap3-wdt"; > > Hmmm ... comparing the omap3 and omap4 wdt registers there are some > differences. omap4 seems to have more registers than omap3. May be we > are not using these right now, but from a register perspective the wdt > in omap2, omap3 and omap4 appear to be slightly different. The revision > ID register on omap3 and omap4 have different values too. > > I guess from a driver perspective there is no difference, but it seemed > to me that the IP is not completely the same. Well, in that case, and assuming that there is no proper HW_REVISION information to detect the IP difference, the proper compatible entries will indeed have to be used. > >> I'm still a little bit confused about the real need for the >> "ti,omap4-wdt: entry, but it seems to be the way to do it in PPC. >> >>>>> + {}, >>>>> +}; >>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, omap_wdt_of_match); >>>>> + >>>>> static struct platform_driver omap_wdt_driver = { >>>>> .probe = omap_wdt_probe, >>>>> .remove = __devexit_p(omap_wdt_remove), >>>>> @@ -439,6 +446,7 @@ static struct platform_driver omap_wdt_driver = { >>>>> .driver = { >>>>> .owner = THIS_MODULE, >>>>> .name = "omap_wdt", >>>>> + .of_match_table = omap_wdt_of_match, >>>>> }, >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we need to add some code to the probe function that calls >>>> of_match_device() and ensures we find a match. For example ... >>>> >>>> if (of_have_populated_dt()) >>>> if (!of_match_device(omap_wdt_of_match,&pdev->dev)) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>> Will add it in v2, thanks for suggestion. >> >> No, in fact this is not needed. We need that mainly when several >> instances can match the same driver and thus we select the proper one >> using the of_match_device. Otherwise, just check is the device_node is >> there. >> >> In that case, the driver does not even care about any DT node so there >> is no need to add extra code for that. Keep it simple. > > Ok. So are you saying get rid of the match table altogether? In other > words, drop this patch? No, the match table is used by the LDM to find the proper driver to be bound to a device. So we do need it. But we do not have to use the of_match_device if we do not want to get the entry in the device table. > I agree that it does not really do anything today, but I did not know if > in the future you were planning to pass things like, register addresses, > via DT. Well, yes we will have to, otherwise people will keep complaining that our DTS sucks and are not compliant with the DTS standards :-) Regards, Benoit