On 7/25/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/25/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> + * At the moment, a single table is used for all bus types because it is > >> + * assumed that the data size is small and that the compatible values > >> + * should already be distinct enough to differentiate between SPI, I2C > >> + * and other devices. > > > > Maybe add a section recommending to update the alias list in the linux > > device driver before adding entries here? This table should be a last > > resort. I'm not even sure this table should exist, what would be a > > case where we would need to make an entry here instead of fixing the > > device driver by adding an alias name? > > > In principle I agree. However, this patch is simply porting the i2c > specific code to something that can be used by both SPI and I2C. I > don't want to rework the actual mechanism in this particular patch. I > can submit an additional patch to change this along with reworking > some of the behavior that needs to be improved. > > > >> + * First method is to lookup the compatible value in of_modalias_table. > >> + * Second is to look for a "linux,<modalias>" entry in the compatible > list > >> + * and used that for modalias. Third is to strip off the manufacturer > >> + * prefix from the first compatible entry and use the remainder as > modalias > > > > I also think this is a problem. Embedding the name of Linux device > > drivers into device firmware makes it almost impossible to rename the > > device driver. Again, what is a case where generic part numbers can't > > be listed in the alias section of the linux device driver? > > > > Even eeprom was just fixed to take generic part numbers (at24). > > > Again, I agree, but this change is very much a stop gap measure to get > things working in a sane way without having to create bad device tree > bindings (device tree bindings are hard to change, code is not). I've > been considering posting a patch to remove this clause from the > functions, but that needs to be reviewed separately from this change.
Isn't putting "compatible="linux,modalias"" into your device tree a really bad idea? > > Thanks, > > g. > > -- > Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. > Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. > -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
