OK, I think I will use named structures.
Thanks.
> 在 2016年1月1日，20:55，Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> 写道：
>
>> On Tuesday 29 December 2015 14:59:59 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> On December 27, 2015 11:22:20 PM PST, Xing Zheng <zhengx...@rock-chips.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> The RK3036's GRFs offset are different with RK3066/RK3188, and need to
>>> set
>>> mac TX/RX clock before probe emac.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengx...@rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>> <snip>
>>> };
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id emac_rockchip_dt_ids[] = {
>>> - { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data =
>>> &emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] },
>>> - { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data =
>>> &emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] },
>>> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3036-emac", .data =
>>> &emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] },
>>> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data =
>>> &emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] },
>>> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data =
>>> &emac_rockchip_dt_data[2] },
>>> { /* Sentinel */ }
>>
>> Food for thought, you might want to use an enum here to index
>> emac_rockchip_dt_data which would be less error prone if you add/remove
>> entries in this structure.
>
> I would use named structures instead:
>
> static const struct emac_rockchip_soc_data emac_rk3066_emac_data = {
> .grf_offset = 0x154,
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id emac_rockchip_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data = &emac_rk3066_emac_data,
> ...
> };
>
> Armd
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
