RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform driver

[Alice Guo]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2020年11月18日 18:42
> To: Alice Guo <alice.guo@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>;
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform
> driver
> 
> Caution: EXT Email
> 
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:28:47AM +0000, Alice Guo wrote:
>  >
> > > If it is properly explained and there is no other way then yes, you
> > > could. Here, for old DTBs, I would prefer to use
> > > of_platform_device_create() and bind to "soc" node (child of root).
> > > This way you would always have device and exactly one entry point
> > > for the probe.
> > >
> >
> > static struct platform_driver imx8_soc_init_driver = {
> >       .probe = imx8_soc_init_probe,
> >       .driver = {
> >               .name = "soc@0",
> >       },
> > };
> > Can I use "soc@0" to match this driver? It will not use
> > of_platform_device_create(). It will use of_find_property() to
> > determine whether and nvmem-cells can be used. If there is no nvmem-cells,
> it will use the old way, which supports old DTBS. There is no need to add new
> compatible.
> 
> No, the soc@0 is not a proper name for the driver.

I have no good idea, please give suggestion. Should I still add new compatible?
Should I still keep device_initcall? If use of_platform_device_create(), which
node should I use?

Best regards,
Alice Guo

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof