[PATCH 2/6] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >> The non-DT support has to be maintained for now to not break
> >> OMAP3 legacy boot, and the legacy-style code will be cleaned
> >> up once OMAP3 is also converted to DT-boot only.
> > 
> >> @@ -587,24 +606,157 @@ static int omap_mbox_unregister(struct omap_mbox_device *mdev)
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap2_data = {
> >> +	.num_users	= 4,
> >> +	.num_fifos	= 6,
> >> +	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap3_data = {
> >> +	.num_users	= 2,
> >> +	.num_fifos	= 2,
> >> +	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct omap_mbox_device_data am335x_data = {
> >> +	.num_users	= 4,
> >> +	.num_fifos	= 8,
> >> +	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE2,
> >> +};
> > 
> > So you use compatible strings to look up 3 integers. Would it be better to have
> > num_users/num_fifos/intr_type directly in the device tree? That should be cleaner
> > and more flexible...
> > 
> > If you do that, would it be possible to have share compatible string?
> 
> Yeah, I have actually encoded the .num_users and .num_fifos in DT in the
> previous version [1] with shared compatible strings, but dropped those
> properties in favour of adding minimal custom properties to DT based on
> some offline IRC comments. I have no objections either way, but there is
> really nothing to be gained from minimizing compatible strings.

Actually, I'd guess best solution would be to do both: have it encoded
in device tree _and_ have separate compatible string for each version
(in case there are other differences). You'd still get rid of the
table...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html