lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] watchdog: omap_wdt: add device tree support
    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.

    >>> + {},
    >>> +};
    >>> +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.

    Regards,
    Benoit


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-30 10:41    [W:0.087 / U:29.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site