Re[2]: [PATCH 07/13] pinctrl: add a pincontrol driver for BCM6358

From: "Alexander Shiyan" <shc_work@mail.ru>
To: "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Kevin Cernekee" <cernekee@gmail.com>,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Álvaro Fernández Rojas" <noltari@gmail.com>,
	"Jonas Gorski" <jonas.gorski@gmail.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [PATCH 07/13] pinctrl: add a pincontrol driver for BCM6358
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:43:42 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1471967022.3197919@f302.i.mail.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYDZhA4_fvzFh5heE=Hvh9157rWRHdm+1k28hROSwk=7g@mail.gmail.com>

>Вторник, 23 августа 2016, 12:18 +03:00 от Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>
>On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jonas Gorski < jonas.gorski@gmail.com > wrote:
>> On 22 August 2016 at 15:21, Linus Walleij < linus.walleij@linaro.org > wrote:
>
>>>> +       else
>>>> +               mode = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_pdevname("syscon.fffe0098");
>>>
>>> That looks very very fragile.
>>
>> For !OF I need to use the pdevname, so I need to "guess" the right
>> one, and using the scheme of "syscon.<address>" seemed to be the one
>> most likely not conflicting with anything else.
>
>OK from my side, I can live with that.
>
>CC:ing the syscon pdev support author: Alexander what is your
>thoughts about this? Is there a good convention to follow for
>pdev lookups?

Because the platform on which this feature was used is fully converted  to DT,
I was planning to send a patch to remove this function :)

Such usage is in my view perfectly acceptable for the period until the
platform is gradually being converted to DT, but the best way, of course,
is using syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible() or syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle().

---