[PATCH 6/6] mmc: sdhci-s3c: Add device tree support

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Montag 30 Januar 2012, 20:01:14 schrieb Grant Likely:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:51:11AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 2. November 2011, 21:36:03 schrieb Thomas Abraham:
> > 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > in patch 1/6:
> > > +static struct platform_device_id sdhci_s3c_driver_ids[] = {
> > > +       {
> > > +               .name           = "s3c-sdhci",
> > > +               .driver_data    = (kernel_ulong_t)NULL,
> > > +       },
> > > +       {
> > > +               .name           = "exynos4-sdhci",
> > > +               .driver_data    = EXYNOS4_SDHCI_DRV_DATA,
> > > +       },
> > > +};
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, sdhci_s3c_driver_ids);
> > 
> > and in patch 6/6:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > > +static const struct of_device_id sdhci_s3c_dt_match[] = {
> > > +	{ .compatible = "samsung,s3c6410-sdhci", },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-sdhci",
> > > +		.data = &exynos4_sdhci_drv_data },
> > > +	{},
> > > +};
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sdhci_s3c_dt_match);
> > 
> > wouldn't it be better to keep the naming consistent between of and
> > non-of? I.e. s3c-sdhci vs. s3c6410-sdhci. Since the driver is used for
> > all S3C SoCs containing hsmmc controllers I think s3c-sdhci would be
> > preferable here.
> 
> History has shown that future devices aren't always compatible with earlier
> ones.  Compatible strings are expected to be specific to an exact device to
> reduce the possibility of new hardware breaking assumptions.
> 
> Instead, new hardware can either claim compatibility with older
> compatible strings (the compatible property in the DT is a list), or
> can have the new string added to the match table in the driver;
> whichever option makes the most sense.
ah, ok. Thanks for the explanation and I will keep that in mind.

Heiko