On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:55:11 +0200, Thierry Reding <[email protected]> wrote: > * Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 04/02/2012 02:37 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > * Stephen Warren wrote: > > >> On 03/28/2012 08:33 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > >>> Add auxdata to instantiate the PWFM controller from a device tree, > > >>> include the corresponding nodes in the dtsi files for Tegra 20 and > > >>> Tegra 30 and add binding documentation. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <[email protected]> > > >>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> > > >> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c > > >> ... > > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > > >>> +static struct of_device_id tegra_pwm_of_match[] = { > > >>> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pwm" }, > > >>> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-pwm" }, > > >> > > >> Could you swap those two lines, so that tegra30-pwm matches first. It > > >> makes no difference at present, but might in the future if the driver > > >> actually has to differentiate the two SoCs. > > > > > > I thought the matching order was determined by the compatible property in > > > the > > > device tree, not the OF match table of the driver. > > > > At least logically, yes. However, of_match_device() appears to iterate > > over each match table entry, checking whether it matches any string in > > the compatible flag. Perhaps this could be considered a bug? > > It certainly is counter-intuitive. Maybe Grant or Rob can comment?
Yes, it is a bug. The order of of_device_id should be entirely irrelevant, and the order in the DT compatible property should determine which match entry is returned. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
