Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 May 2012 18:14:18 +0800 | From | Xiao Jiang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] watchdog: omap_wdt: add device tree support |
| |
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 <jgq516@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> Add device table for omap_wdt to support dt. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> 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"; > 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. I believe OMAP2, OMAP3 and OMAP4 share the same IP, so how about use "ti, omap2-wdt"? and other dts files put compatible like "ti,omap4-wdt", "ti,omap2-wdt" and "ti,omap4-wdt", "ti,omap2-wdt". > >>>> + {}, >>>> +}; >>>> +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. > Thanks for elaborating, simple is good for this one.
Regards, Xiao > Regards, > Benoit
| |