[PATCH v3 1/4] of: adapt of_find_i2c_driver() to be usable by SPI also

[Jon Smirl]

On 7/25/08, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 7/25/08, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
>  >> From: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
>  >>
>
> >>  + * At the moment, a single table is used for all bus types because it is
>  >>  + * assumed that the data size is small and that the compatible values
>  >>  + * should already be distinct enough to differentiate between SPI, I2C
>  >>  + * and other devices.
>  >
>  > Maybe add a section recommending to update the alias list in the linux
>  > device driver before adding entries here? This table should be a last
>  > resort. I'm not even sure this table should exist, what would be a
>  > case where we would need to make an entry here instead of fixing the
>  > device driver by adding an alias name?
>
>
> In principle I agree.  However, this patch is simply porting the i2c
>  specific code to something that can be used by both SPI and I2C.  I
>  don't want to rework the actual mechanism in this particular patch.  I
>  can submit an additional patch to change this along with reworking
>  some of the behavior that needs to be improved.
>
>
>  >>  + * First method is to lookup the compatible value in of_modalias_table.
>  >>  + * Second is to look for a "linux,<modalias>" entry in the compatible list
>  >>  + * and used that for modalias.  Third is to strip off the manufacturer
>  >>  + * prefix from the first compatible entry and use the remainder as modalias
>  >
>  > I also think this is a problem. Embedding the name of Linux device
>  > drivers into device firmware makes it almost impossible to rename the
>  > device driver.  Again, what is a case where generic part numbers can't
>  > be listed in the alias section of the linux device driver?
>  >
>  > Even eeprom was just fixed to take generic part numbers (at24).
>
>
> Again, I agree, but this change is very much a stop gap measure to get
>  things working in a sane way without having to create bad device tree
>  bindings (device tree bindings are hard to change, code is not).  I've
>  been considering posting a patch to remove this clause from the
>  functions, but that needs to be reviewed separately from this change.

Isn't putting "compatible="linux,modalias"" into your device tree a
really bad idea?

>
>  Thanks,
>
> g.
>
>  --
>  Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
>  Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl at gmail.com