On 08/01/2014 15:07, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

Hi Wolfram,

On 08/01/2014 14:39, Wolfram Sang wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

However, when I first read this I thought it should be a -a0 specific
compatible string, not a 'offload-broken' property - any idea what the
DT consensus is here? I've seen both approach in use ..

I prefer the replacement of the compatible string. If it should really
be a seperate property, then it should be a vendor specific property. It
is not generic, at all.

Something like "marvell,offload-broken" would be acceptable?

A tad more, yes. Still, since this is a feature/quirk of the IP core
revision, it should be deduced from the compatible property IMO. It
cannot be configured anywhere, so it doesn't change on board level.

So you would prefer using the "marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c" comaptible string and
updating it with the follwing piece of code?

This is the approach I favour, yes. Can't say much about the
implementation. Looks OK, but dunno if this is minimal...

Allocating memory in each loop could seem convoluted. In my first approach
I just used a static struct but I got warning during boot about duplicated
node. It seems we can use the same property struct for two different nodes.

Oh! I just meant the opposite: " It seems  we can NOT use the same property
struct for two different nodes."

quoted

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com