[RFC PATCH] ARM: pmu: add OF match support

[Rob Herring]

Grant,

On 02/09/2011 08:02 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> Will,
>
> On 02/09/2011 03:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>> Add OF match table to enable OF style driver binding. The dts entry
>>> is like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> pmu {
>>> compatible = "arm,pmu";
>>> interrupts =<100 101>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> The use of pdev->id as an index breaks with OF device binding. Change
>>> to use
>>> a counter instead. If more than 1 pmu device is ever really supported, a
>>> better solution to match users with particular pmu is probably needed.
>>
>> We will want to support multiple PMU devices in the near future but
>> this is currently blocked on userspace issues. One such device would
>> be the event counters on the PL310, which could be used to complement
>> the CPU PMU on the Cortex-A9.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of a counter as it forces platforms to register
>> their devices in a specific order. Is it possible to separate different
>> types of PMU in the device tree and then have pmu.c work out what to do
>> with them?
>
> Yes, they are easily distinguished by the compatible strings. Adding a
> pmu_get function which returns the device based on a string or
> capabilities may be a better solution. If you had 2 pmu's of the same
> type, the current code would break.
>
> In any case, how about this:
>
> static int __devinit pmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> enum arm_pmu_type type = pdev->id;
>
> if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "arm,pmu"))
> type = ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU;

Actually, this needs to be:

#ifdef CONFIG_OF
	if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "arm,pmu"))
		type = ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU;
#endif

Seems fixing the struct device conditional is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Should we do empty functions for all driver accessed OF functions?

Rob