Hi Stephen, On 28 April 2016 at 17:08, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > > This will allow a driver's bind function to use the driver data. One > example is the Tegra186 GPIO driver, which instantiates child devices > for each of its GPIO ports, yet supports two different HW instances each > with a different set of ports, and identified by the udevice_id .data > field. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/core/device.c | 7 ++++--- > drivers/core/lists.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/gpio/dwapb_gpio.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpio/s5p_gpio.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpio/sunxi_gpio.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpio/tegra_gpio.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/spi/sandbox.c | 2 +- > drivers/net/mvpp2.c | 3 ++- > drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 5 ++--- > drivers/power/pmic/pmic-uclass.c | 2 +- > drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c | 5 ++--- > include/dm/device-internal.h | 5 +++-- > 12 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
I'm not sure this extra parameter carries its weight: - most callers just pass 0 - the field is supposed to be set up by device tree and probing tables, not code - bind() methods should not care about the driver data (they are not allowed to touch hardware), so setting it later is fine - you can already pass platform data to the driver which is the preferred communication method from a parent to its children Also it's not clear from your Tegra 186 GPIO patch where you are using this. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot