[PATCH v4 3/3] arm/tegra: device tree support for ventana board

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt.c
>> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
>>
>>  void harmony_pinmux_init(void);
>>  void seaboard_pinmux_init(void);
>> -
>> +void ventana_pinmux_init(void);
>>
>>  struct of_dev_auxdata tegra20_auxdata_lookup[] __initdata = {
>>         OF_DEV_AUXDATA("nvidia,tegra20-sdhci", TEGRA_SDMMC1_BASE, "sdhci-tegra.0", NULL),
>> @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ static void __init tegra_dt_init(void)
>>                 harmony_pinmux_init();
>>         else if (of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,seaboard"))
>>                 seaboard_pinmux_init();
>> +       else if (of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,ventana"))
>> +               ventana_pinmux_init();
>
> Are you (Peter, Colin, Olof) confident that this is not getting out
> of hand before it's getting better?
>
> If we are keeping the per-board pinmux configuration in the kernel
> for longer, I think it would be better to do this table-driven than
> having a list of top-level of_machine_is_compatible() statements
> and do something like:
>
> static struct {
>        const char *machine;
>        struct tegra_pingroup_config *config[];
> } pinmux_configs[] __initdata = {
>        { "nvidia,ventana", &ventana_pinmux },
>        { "nvidia,seaboard, &seaboard_pinmux },
> };

That is definitely a nicer solution. I didn't see a strong need to
switch to that model now since it should hopefully be a temporary
thing, but given Stephen's mention of Cardhu, I think it does make
sense.

Peter, care to respin this patch with the above solution instead?
Also, please print a warning if no match is found.


Thanks,

-Olof