RE: [upstream-release] [PATCH net 2/4] fsl/fman: arm: call of_platform_populate() for arm64 platfrom

[Madalin-Cristian Bucur]

> From: Scott Wood
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:42 PM
> 
> On 12/15/2016 07:11 AM, Madalin Bucur wrote:
> > From: Igal Liberman <igal.liberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igal Liberman <igal.liberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman.c
> > index dafd9e1..f36b4eb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman.c
> > @@ -2868,6 +2868,16 @@ static struct fman *read_dts_node(struct
> platform_device *of_dev)
> >
> >  	fman->dev = &of_dev->dev;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> > +	/* call of_platform_populate in order to probe sub-nodes on arm64 */
> > +	err = of_platform_populate(fm_node, NULL, NULL, &of_dev->dev);
> > +	if (err) {
> > +		dev_err(&of_dev->dev, "%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n",
> > +			__func__);
> > +		goto fman_free;
> > +	}
> > +#endif
> 
> Should we remove fsl,fman from the PPC of_device_ids[], so this doesn't
> need an ifdef?
> 
> Why is it #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 rather than #ifndef CONFIG_PPC?
> 
> -Scott

Igal was working on adding ARM64 support when this patch was created, thus the
choice of #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64. Unifying this for PPC and ARM64 by always calling
of_platform_populate() sounds like the best approach. I would need to synchronize
the introduction of this code with the removal of the fsl,fman entry from the
of_device_ids[] array.

Dave, Michael, Scott, is it ok to add to v2 of this patch set the patch that removes
the compatible "fsl,fman" from arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/corenet_generic.c?

Thanks,
Madalin