From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:54446 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727282AbeGNQnz (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:43:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:24:19 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Paul Cercueil Cc: Alessandro Zummo , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: jz4740: Add support for the JZ4725B, JZ4760, JZ4770 Message-ID: <20180714162419.GX16084@piout.net> References: <20180713151424.13000-1-paul@crapouillou.net> <20180714131920.GU16084@piout.net> <1531574734.2831.0@smtp.crapouillou.net> <20180714133250.GW16084@piout.net> <1531576208.2831.1@smtp.crapouillou.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1531576208.2831.1@smtp.crapouillou.net> Sender: linux-rtc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14/07/2018 15:50:08+0200, Paul Cercueil wrote: > > > > This would avoid that change (and the test would preferably be > > > > (rtc->type == ID_JZ4780)) > > > > > > That branch should be taken if the SoC is JZ4760, JZ4770 or JZ4780. > > > It should not be taken if the SoC is JZ4740 or JZ4725B. > > > > Sure but you can achieve that with only 2 ids... > > > > > > > > > > ret = jz4780_rtc_enable_write(rtc); > > > > > if (ret == 0) > > > > > ret = jz4740_rtc_wait_write_ready(rtc); > > > > > @@ -300,6 +303,9 @@ static void jz4740_rtc_power_off(void) > > > > > > > > > > static const struct of_device_id jz4740_rtc_of_match[] = { > > > > > { .compatible = "ingenic,jz4740-rtc", .data = (void > > > *)ID_JZ4740 }, > > > > > + { .compatible = "ingenic,jz4725b-rtc", .data = (void > > > *)ID_JZ4725B > > > > > }, > > > > > + { .compatible = "ingenic,jz4760-rtc", .data = (void > > > *)ID_JZ4760 }, > > > > > + { .compatible = "ingenic,jz4770-rtc", .data = (void > > > *)ID_JZ4770 }, > > > > By doing the correct mapping here e.g: > > > > { .compatible = "ingenic,jz4725b-rtc", .data = (void *)ID_JZ4740 }, > > Not very pretty and future-proof if you ask me... > But you're the boss... > I think it makes the code simpler to follow . Regarding future proofness, you will have to add code and probably use a switch case at the time you need to handle an RTC differently. At that time, the >= test trick will not work anymore anyway. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com