Le 20/07/2015 10:35, Josh Wu a écrit : > Hi, Maxime > > On 7/20/2015 3:52 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Josh, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:21:44AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >>> On 7/11/2015 12:12 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>> Le 10/07/2015 14:31, Maxime Ripard a écrit : >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/07/2015 at 15:56:52 +0800, Josh Wu wrote : >>>>>>> I would agree with Maxime. Currently all latest chip reset function is >>>>>>> compatible with the atmel,sama5d3-rstc. >>>>>>> So check compatible string is enough for now. >>>>>>> But of cause if we have other incompatible reset in future with new >>>>>>> chip, >>>>>>> the structure like you said is needed. >>>>>> We managed to avoid using of_machine_is_compatible() in all the at91 >>>>>> drivers. I'd like to keep it that way. It was painful enough to remove >>>>>> all those cpu_is_at91xxx calls. >>>>> That's your call... >>>>> >>>>>> Also, using it is trying to match strings and will result in longer boot >>>>>> times. >>>>> Have you looked at the implementation of of_match_device? If that's >>>>> really a concern to you, you should actually avoid it. >>>> I agree: let's keep it simple and use of_match_device(). >>> Ok. I will keep it as it is now: use the (match->data != sama5d3_restart) >>> for the condition. >> I'm not just that's been an option in our discussion so far. >> >> Nicolas said that he was agreeing with me, but at the same time said >> the complete opposite of what I was arguing for, so I'm not really >> sure what's really on his mind, but the two options that were >> discussed were to remove that test, and either: >> >> - Use of_device_is_compatible to prevent the loop execution > > Thank you for explaining, it is clear to me. > > I'll take this above option. As the of_device_is_compatible() almost > same as of_match_node()/of_match_device(). Except that > of_device_is_compatible() is more efficient (in this case It calls > __of_device_is_compatible() directly) than of_match_node/of_match_device.
Yes, I was pushing for this solution... >> - define a structure with a flag to say whether you need the ram >> controller quirk or not, and test that flag. and not for this one, that's all. I wrongly added the name of the improper function to use too quickly picked from your discussion with Alex. So, all is clear now. Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
