On 7/20/2015 4:44 PM, Josh Wu wrote:
On 7/20/2015 4:35 PM, Josh Wu wrote:
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.
Sorry, after checking the code a little, I'd say use the of_match_node
instead of of_device_is_compatible() is better. Since After check the
of_device_is_compatible() we also need to call of_match_node() again.
Okay, Please forget above reply. As Maxime said test the pointer is not
good solution here.
So I'll sent out v2 which use of_device_is_compatible().
Best Regards,
Josh Wu
--
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/
