Re: [PATCH 3/8] i2c: at91: use an id table for SoC dependent parameters

[ludovic.desroches <ludovic.desroches-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Le 09/01/2012 11:10 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD a écrit :
> On 22:47 Fri 31 Aug     , Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>> On 08/31/2012 04:51 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
>>>>> index f2112f9..0bc91e5 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
>>>>> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup periph_clocks_lookups[] = {
>>>>>    	CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.0",&ssc0_clk),
>>>>>    	CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.1",&ssc1_clk),
>>>>>    	CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("pclk", "ssc.2",&ssc2_clk),
>>>>> -	CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "at91_i2c",&twi_clk),
>>>>> +	CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "at91rm9200_i2c",&twi_clk),
>>>> use i2c-xxx as on other drivers
>>>>
>>>> and I do not like to have platform_device_id
>>>
>>> Me, I like it and find this implementation very elegant.
>>>
>>>> as we need to touch the driver to add a new soc
>>>
>>> So what? We still keep the compatibility if the new SoC has it
>>> compatibility assured with previous revision: there is nothing to modify.
>>
>> I agree. The driver would need to be touched to support new SoC only if
>> the IP there have had some differences, which would have needed to be
>> resolved anyway.
>>
>>>> please use platform data
>>
>> Using platform data for the dt platforms would have been more troublesome,
>> wouldn't it ? I like Ludovic's approach which handles both: dt and non-dt
>> cases in uniform way from the driver's POV.
> no you will describe it via DT as done on all the other drivers
>>
>>> No, it does not have to be exposed to the user: these data are highly
>>> dependent on the actual hardware (IP revision in fact). So, no need to
>>> mess with platform data.
> no I really see no point on these list of platform_id it's does not look more
> nice just more huggly to have x names. This is at the end the same as passing
> platform data via soc info (add_xx or dtsi)
>
> And here you just do the same as cpu_is via names.
>
> The driver need to read IP revision instead
>

At the beginning it was planned to do this but:
- a new SoC, with a new IP version lead to update the driver also
- with the MCI driver which uses IP version, I have some cases where 
using the version was not enough, a SoC approach would be better. For 
instance, the IP version tells that we can use PDC feature but PDC is 
not connected.

> Best Regards,
> J.
>
>

Regards

Ludovic