Am Mittwoch, 2. November 2011, 21:36:03 schrieb Thomas Abraham:
Hi Thomas,
in patch 1/6:
> +static struct platform_device_id sdhci_s3c_driver_ids[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "s3c-sdhci",
> + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)NULL,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "exynos4-sdhci",
> + .driver_data = EXYNOS4_SDHCI_DRV_DATA,
> + },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, sdhci_s3c_driver_ids);
and in patch 6/6:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static const struct of_device_id sdhci_s3c_dt_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "samsung,s3c6410-sdhci", },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-sdhci",
> + .data = &exynos4_sdhci_drv_data },
> + {},
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sdhci_s3c_dt_match);
wouldn't it be better to keep the naming consistent between of and non-of?
I.e. s3c-sdhci vs. s3c6410-sdhci. Since the driver is used for all S3C SoCs
containing hsmmc controllers I think s3c-sdhci would be preferable here.
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
