Messages in this thread |  | | From | Rob Herring <> | Date | Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:51:59 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: probe and init of variant driver from the platform device |
| |
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yaniv, > > 2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>: >> @@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> goto out; >> } >> >> - hba->vops = get_variant_ops(&pdev->dev); >> + err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev); >> + if (err) >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, >> + "%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n", __func__); >> + >> + ufs_variant_node = of_get_next_available_child(node, NULL); >> + >> + if (!ufs_variant_node) { >> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to find ufs_variant_node child\n"); >> + } else { >> + ufs_variant_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(ufs_variant_node); >> + >> + if (ufs_variant_pdev) >> + hba->vops = (struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *) >> + dev_get_drvdata(&ufs_variant_pdev->dev); >> + } > > I have no strong objection to 'ufs_variant' sub-node. But why can't we > simply add an of_device_id to ufs_of_match, like below:
But I do have objections on both the naming and having a sub-node.
> > static const struct of_device_id ufs_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "jedec,ufs-1.1"}, > #if IS_ENABLED(SCSI_UFS_QCOM) > { .compatible = "qcom,ufs", .data = &ufs_hba_qcom_vops },
Be more specific: qcom,<socname>-ufs
> #neidf
Drop the ifdef.
Rob
|  |