Re: [PATCH 2/8] i2c: Add the ability to match device to compatible string without an of_node

From: Wolfram Sang
Date: Fri Sep 12 2014 - 09:46:37 EST


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 03:35:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> A great deal of I2C devices are currently matched via DT node name, and
> as such the compatible naming convention of '<vendor>,<device>' has gone
> somewhat awry - some nodes don't supply one, some supply an arbitrary
> string and others the correct device name with an arbitrary vendor prefix.
>
> In an effort to correct this problem we have to supply a mechanism to
> match a device by compatible string AND by simple device name. This
> function strips off the '<vendor>,' part of a supplied compatible string
> and attempts to match without it.
>
> The plan is to remove this function once all of the compatible strings
> for each device have been brought into line.

Is this really the plan? I mean, the old matching mechanism has been out
there for ages and I dunno how many already deployed DTs depend on it.
I'd think we need to keep this around forever.

>
> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> index d3c8e9f..eb46d15 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> @@ -1095,6 +1095,27 @@ struct i2c_adapter *of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(struct device_node *node)
> return i2c_verify_adapter(dev);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node);
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id*
> +i2c_of_match_device_strip_vendor(const struct of_device_id *matches,
> + struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + const char *name;
> +
> + for (; matches->compatible[0]; matches++) {
> + name = strchr(matches->compatible, ',');
> + if (!name)
> + name = matches->compatible;
> + else
> + name++;
> +
> + if (!strnicmp(client->name, name, strlen(client->name)))

Are compatible-properties case-independent? I though they were not.

> + return matches;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> #else
> static void of_i2c_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap) { }
> #endif /* CONFIG_OF */
> --
> 1.9.1
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature