On 03/31/2014 10:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:45:01AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 03/28/2014 05:46 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
The driver has no DT support at all at the minute but if it's being used on platforms using DT (which of course it is now I think about it - I just looked for the DT support when reviewing) then yes it should.
The driver doesn't have an OF match table (I'll send a patch to fix that soon), but certainly does support DT; see rt5640_parse_dt().
Oh, dear. That's not clever and we do need the IDs adding, that's the baseline thing needed for DT support.
I really wish we would make up our minds about this.
For I2C (and SPI and perhaps others) the I2C match table works fine as a replacement for the of_match table. The only issue might be different manufacturers with the same chip names. If this is a problem, why is fallback to the I2C match table even allowed any more; we should mandate that OF matching only works via the OF match table.
When DT was young, Grant tried to require of_match for everything for completeness, and then I tried enforcing that for reviews, and then Grant said not to bother with that, so I stopped, and now you're saying it's required again. I really wish I could get consistency in how this kind of thing is supposed to work. It's difficult for contributors to know what to do if reviewers keep flip-flopping over time.