[PATCH] ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space v2 and parents

[Andrew Lunn]

> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/board-dt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/board-dt.c
> > > @@ -96,6 +96,11 @@ static void __init kirkwood_dt_init(void)
> > >  	if (of_machine_is_compatible("keymile,km_kirkwood"))
> > >  		km_kirkwood_init();
> > >  
> > > +	if (of_machine_is_compatible("lacie,inetspace_v2") ||
> > > +	    of_machine_is_compatible("lacie,netspace_v2") ||
> > > +	    of_machine_is_compatible("lacie,netspace_max_v2"))
> > > +		ns2_init();
> > > +
> > >  	of_platform_populate(NULL, kirkwood_dt_match_table,
> > >  			     kirkwood_auxdata_lookup, NULL);
> > 
> > I'm not a DT policy expert. Could this be one compatibility string for
> > all the boards? Maybe ask on the DT mainline list?
> 
> Maybe I could use "lacie,ns2_common" as a compatibility string. But this
> does not match any existing device. I don't know if it is correct.

Hi Simon

I did a bit of looking around. For kirkwood, we already have two
boards sharing the same compatibility string. kirkwood-dns320.dts and
kirkwood-dns325.dts both have dlink,dns-kirkwood and this is what the
board-dt.c matches on.

For the tegra20 soc, all boards match on nvidia,tegra20, and that is the only
compatibility string in board-dt-tegra20.c.

So i don't see any problem having just one compatibility string here.

The question is, what is the appropriate name. How common is this
common C code? Are there ns2 where this C code is not appropriate. One
thing to remember is that most of this C code will soon disappear and
become DT. All the mpp will be replaced with pinctrl in 3.8. I hope we
can get the Ethernet setup in DT as well. You are working on ns2_led,
so all the C code will be replaced by DT. So all we are really left
with is power off GPIO handling.

So i think the danger of using lacie,ns2_common, and then finding it
does not work with some other ns2 device is quite low.

What do you think?

     Thanks
	Andrew