From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scottwood@freescale.com>
Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net
	[192.88.158.103])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6118DDF81
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:19:26 +1100 (EST)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:42:55 -0600
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [i2c] [PATCH 0/4] Series to add device tree naming to i2c
Message-ID: <20071210164255.GA4497@loki.buserror.net>
References: <20071203212032.23543.3453.stgit@terra.home>
	<9e4733910712091224mcb43f0ci69f578d221505ba7@mail.gmail.com>
	<1197233208.6563.14.camel@pasglop>
	<9e4733910712091257x4ba5e07aue55934fb6898aa2d@mail.gmail.com>
	<1197234799.6563.19.camel@pasglop>
	<9e4733910712091335g534d9248gcd920850f9f679a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<1197236326.6563.22.camel@pasglop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1197236326.6563.22.camel@pasglop>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	i2c@lm-sensors.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:38:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that tagging isn't
> necessary and you are right. We should just match the name against the
> "compatible" property of the OF nodes (which mean we need to support
> multiple matches though since "compatible" is a list of strings).

It may not be strictly necessary, but I think it's a good idea not just for
safety reasons, but as an indication to the driver what additional
information it has access to.  We could put a match data pointer in the i2c
device, and have it be a valid node pointer if the match was an OF one (and
a device-specific struct for a straight platform device, etc).  This could
be useful if a device needs to have more properties than standard
address/type/interrupt for some reason.

-Scott