Re: [i2c] [PATCH 0/4] Series to add device tree naming to i2c

On 12/9/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+static struct i2c_device_id rs5c372_id[] = {
+       {"rtc-rs5c372", rtc_rs5c372a},
+       {"rs5c372a", rtc_rs5c372a},
+       {"rs5c372b", rtc_rs5c372b},
+       {"rv5c386", rtc_rv5c386},
+       {"rv5c387a", rtc_rv5c387a},
+       DT_NAME({"ricoh,rs5c372a", rtc_rs5c372a},)
+       DT_NAME({"ricoh,rs5c372b", rtc_rs5c372b},)
+       DT_NAME({"ricoh,rv5c386", rtc_rv5c386},)
+       DT_NAME({"ricoh,rv5c387a", rtc_rv5c387a},)
+       {},

But what's the point in making these names specific to device trees?
They are perfectly valid names for the devices that could be used from
any platform.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that tagging isn't
necessary and you are right. We should just match the name against the
"compatible" property of the OF nodes (which mean we need to support
multiple matches though since "compatible" is a list of strings).

Now, I have a question about your example: Why do you have both
"rs5c372a" and "ricoh,rs5c372a" ?

The "rs5c372a" is unrelated to the device tree changes. In the
existing i2c driver code the driver is named rtc-rs5c372. But this
driver supports five different devices. A secondary i2c parameter
(driver_name, name) is used to tell the rtc-rs5c372 driver that it is
being loaded for use on a rs5c372a, rv5c387a, etc. When I fixed i2c to
support device tree name aliases I also fixed it to use kernel
aliasing to support these drivers that support multiple devices.

I would argue that we should keep only the later...

Cheers,
Ben.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com