Re: [PATCH 01/14] pinctrl-sx150x: Rely on of_modalias_node for OF matching

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> None of the OF match table entries contain any compatiblity strings that
>>> could not be matched against using i2c_device_id table above and
>>> of_modalias_node. Besides that entries in OF match table do not cary
>>> proper device variant information which is need by the drive. Those two
>>> facts combined, IMHO, make a compelling case for removal of that code
>>> altogether.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> (...)
>>> -static const struct of_device_id sx150x_of_match[] = {
>>> -       { .compatible = "semtech,sx1508q" },
>>> -       { .compatible = "semtech,sx1509q" },
>>> -       { .compatible = "semtech,sx1506q" },
>>> -       { .compatible = "semtech,sx1502q" },
>>> -       {},
>>> -};
>>
>> I'm a bit hesitant about this since we should ideally first match on the
>> compatible string for any device. We have tried to alleviate the situation
>> in I2C devices but it has been a bit so-so.
>>
>
> Ah, good to know. Let's do it that way then.
>
>> It would be best if we make a separate patch after this tjat adds it
>> back, set the variant data also in the .data of the match and
>> use of_device_get_match_data().
>
> Do you prefer it as a separate patch, or, instead, should I change
> this patch of the series to do what you describe? I'd be happy to do
> either and it seems like it would be a trivial change so it should
> invalidate any of the testing done by Neil.

Yeah it would ideally be a modification of this patch.

Whatever is easiest for you to do!

BTW this is a great patch set and I'm very grateful for yours+Neils
combines contributions on getting this driver into shape.

Yours,
Linus Walleij