Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] mfd: stmpe: Update DT support in stmpe driver

[Viresh Kumar]

On 6 December 2012 15:20, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > But regardless, it is the responsiblity of the probe function to go and
>> > look if of_driver_match_device() matches against anything if it cares
>> > about the of_match_table entries (for instance, if there is extra data
>> > attached).
>>
>> Ok, so filling .data field in of_device_id[] is not required for our case as
>> we aren't doing anything special in our drivers.
>
> This is exactly my point, and the reason I bought it up in the
> first place. Normally when you specify an ID table and populate
> the .data attribute, you parse for it in the code and then cast
> it back to some kind of useful data. However, you're not doing
> that, which is precisely why I wondered if the table was
> necessary at all. In all my testing, the DT portion worked and
> the correct STMPE chip was identified without it.

Probably Vipul (Author of this patch), copied it from existing i2c/spi
clients, which have also added this blindly :)

> So, are you adding the table for good reason, or because you
> think it's the right thing to do?

I would be keeping the table as that's the right thing to do. By chance
our non-DT and DT tables had a difference of "st," only in the name
of instances and so it worked without tables. Otherwise it couldn't
have worked.

Over that, i am looking to bring the "stmpe,id" binding back again (unless
you have a better option), as device name is not coming from DT currently,
which we discussed earlier.

--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/