On 22/11/16 01:43, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> (And adding Sudeep since he becomes involved in this further
> down thread and at that point says he will re-work this
> proposed work around in a manner that is incorrect in a
> manner that is similar to this proposed work around.)
>
> On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
[...]
>> static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> const struct da8xx_ddrctl_config_knob *knob;
>> @@ -118,7 +130,7 @@ static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> setting = da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings();
>> if (!setting) {
>> dev_err(dev, "no settings for board '%s'\n",
>> - of_flat_dt_get_machine_name());
>
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings() tries to match based on the "compatible"
> property in the root node. The "model" property in the root node has
> nothing to do with the failure to match. So creating and then using
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_machine_name() to potentially report model is not useful.
>
> It should be sufficient to simply report that no compatible matched.
>
Agreed.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
