Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: probe and init of variant driver from the platform device

[Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi Yaniv,
>
> 2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi <ygardi-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>:
>> @@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>                 goto out;
>>         }
>>
>> -       hba->vops = get_variant_ops(&pdev->dev);
>> +       err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>> +       if (err)
>> +               dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> +                       "%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n", __func__);
>> +
>> +       ufs_variant_node = of_get_next_available_child(node, NULL);
>> +
>> +       if (!ufs_variant_node) {
>> +               dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to find ufs_variant_node child\n");
>> +       } else {
>> +               ufs_variant_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(ufs_variant_node);
>> +
>> +               if (ufs_variant_pdev)
>> +                       hba->vops = (struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *)
>> +                               dev_get_drvdata(&ufs_variant_pdev->dev);
>> +       }
>
> I have no strong objection to 'ufs_variant' sub-node.  But why can't we
> simply add an of_device_id to ufs_of_match, like below:

But I do have objections on both the naming and having a sub-node.

>
> static const struct of_device_id ufs_of_match[] = {
>         { .compatible = "jedec,ufs-1.1"},
> #if IS_ENABLED(SCSI_UFS_QCOM)
>         { .compatible = "qcom,ufs", .data = &ufs_hba_qcom_vops },

Be more specific: qcom,<socname>-ufs

> #neidf

Drop the ifdef.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html