Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:

On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:35 -0700, Wang Wenhu wrote:

quoted

+#define UIO_INFO_VER	"devicetree,pseudo"

What does this mean?  Changing a number into a non-obvious string (Why
"pseudo"?  Why does the UIO user care that the config came from the device
tree?) just to avoid setting off Greg's version number autoresponse isn't
really helping anything.

quoted

+static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = {
+	{	.compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram",	},

Form is <vendor>,<device> and "uio" is not a vendor (and never will be).

quoted

+	{},
+};
+
+static struct platform_driver uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram = {
+	.probe = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_probe,
+	.remove = uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_remove,
+	.driver = {
+		.name = DRIVER_NAME,
+		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+		.of_match_table	= uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match,
+	},
+};

Greg's comment notwithstanding, I really don't think this belongs in the
device tree (and if I do get overruled on that point, it at least needs a
binding document).  Let me try to come up with a patch for dynamic allocation.

Agreed. "UIO" bindings have long been rejected.

Rob