On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 01:47:19PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > > @@ -62,22 +64,26 @@ static const struct ehci_driver_overrides
> > > platform_overrides __initdata = {
> > > .reset = ehci_platform_reset,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static struct usb_ehci_pdata ehci_platform_defaults;
> >
> > this ehci_platform_defaults is quite a hack. Would be much better to see
> > a proper re-factoring of the code so that it actually learns about DT
> > *and* platform_data.
> >
> > So, if dev->dev.platform_data is NULL, you shouldn't error, rather you
> > should just assume the default, rather than this quick little hack.
> >
> > Alan has final saying though.
>
> IMO, using ehci_platform_defaults _is_ a way of assuming the default.
> In other words, it's not a bad hack. I'm okay with this this approach
> (in fact, it was my suggestion originally).
>
> On the other hand, it would be nice to have a clearer way of indicating
> that the driver was invoked because of a DT match, something better
> than just noticing that dev->dev.platform_data is NULL. But I guess
> this is a legitimate option even for regular platform drivers -- if usually we check that dev->of_node is a valid pointer. > they don't have any specific requirements, they may as well pass a NULL > pointer instead of a pointer to an empty structure. that was my point. -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
