[PATCH RFC v3] media: i2c: mt9p031: add OF support

Prabhakar Lad prabhakar.csengg at gmail.com
Tue May 7 00:59:22 EST 2013


Hi Arnd,

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Friday 03 May 2013, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> +}
>
> Ok, good.
>
>> @@ -955,7 +998,17 @@ static int mt9p031_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>         mt9p031->pdata = pdata;
>>         mt9p031->output_control = MT9P031_OUTPUT_CONTROL_DEF;
>>         mt9p031->mode2 = MT9P031_READ_MODE_2_ROW_BLC;
>> -       mt9p031->model = did->driver_data;
>> +
>> +       if (!client->dev.of_node) {
>> +               mt9p031->model = (enum mt9p031_model)did->driver_data;
>> +       } else {
>> +               const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>> +
>> +               of_id = of_match_device(of_match_ptr(mt9p031_of_match),
>> +                                       &client->dev);
>> +               if (of_id)
>> +                       mt9p031->model = (enum mt9p031_model)of_id->data;
>> +       }
>>         mt9p031->reset = -1;
>
> Is this actually required? I thought the i2c core just compared the
> part of the "compatible" value after the first comma to the string, so
> "mt9p031->model = (enum mt9p031_model)did->driver_data" should work
> in both cases.
>
I am OK with "mt9p031->model = (enum mt9p031_model)did->driver_data"
but I see still few drivers doing this, I am not sure for what reason.
If everyone is
OK with it I can drop the above change.

Laurent, Sascha what do you suggest ?

Regards,
--Prabhakar Lad


More information about the devicetree-discuss mailing list