Hi Tomasz, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:51 PM > To: Chanho Park > Cc: inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx; kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; dri- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx; > mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx; > tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] drm/exynos: add device tree support for > rotator > > Hi Chanho, > > On Friday 09 of August 2013 16:40:49 Chanho Park wrote: > > The exynos4 platform is only dt-based since 3.10, we should convert > > driver data and ids to dt-based parsing methods. The rotator driver > > has a limit table to get size limit of input picture. Each SoCs has > > slightly different limit value compared with any others. > > For example, exynos4210's max_size of RGB888 is 16k x 16k. But, others > > have 8k x 8k. Another example the exynos5250 should have multiple of 2 > > pixel size for its X/Y axis. Thus, we should keep different tables for > > each of them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chanho Park <chanho61.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c | 109 > > ++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 28 > > deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c index 427640a..39b09e0 > > 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c > > @@ -632,6 +632,73 @@ static int rotator_ippdrv_start(struct device > > *dev, enum drm_exynos_ipp_cmd cmd) return 0; } > > > > +static struct rot_limit_table rot_limit_tbl_4210 = { > > + .ycbcr420_2p = { > > + .min_w = 32, > > + .min_h = 32, > > + .max_w = SZ_64K, > > + .max_h = SZ_64K, > > + .align = 3, > > + }, > > + .rgb888 = { > > + .min_w = 8, > > + .min_h = 8, > > + .max_w = SZ_16K, > > + .max_h = SZ_16K, > > + .align = 2, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +static struct rot_limit_table rot_limit_tbl_4x12 = { > > + .ycbcr420_2p = { > > + .min_w = 32, > > + .min_h = 32, > > + .max_w = SZ_32K, > > + .max_h = SZ_32K, > > + .align = 3, > > + }, > > + .rgb888 = { > > + .min_w = 8, > > + .min_h = 8, > > + .max_w = SZ_8K, > > + .max_h = SZ_8K, > > + .align = 2, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +static struct rot_limit_table rot_limit_tbl_5250 = { > > + .ycbcr420_2p = { > > + .min_w = 32, > > + .min_h = 32, > > + .max_w = SZ_32K, > > + .max_h = SZ_32K, > > + .align = 3, > > + }, > > + .rgb888 = { > > + .min_w = 8, > > + .min_h = 8, > > + .max_w = SZ_8K, > > + .max_h = SZ_8K, > > + .align = 1, > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct of_device_id exynos_rotator_match[] = { > > + { > > + .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-rotator", > > + .data = &rot_limit_tbl_4210, > > + }, > > + { > > + .compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-rotator", > > + .data = &rot_limit_tbl_4x12, > > + }, > > + { > > + .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-rotator", > > + .data = &rot_limit_tbl_5250, > > + }, > > + {}, > > +}; > > + > > static int rotator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > @@ -645,8 +712,19 @@ static int rotator_probe(struct platform_device > > *pdev) return -ENOMEM; > > } > > > > - rot->limit_tbl = (struct rot_limit_table *) > > - platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data; > > + if (dev->of_node) { > > + const struct of_device_id *match; > > + match = of_match_node(of_match_ptr(exynos_rotator_match), > > + dev->of_node); > > + if (match == NULL) { > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to match node\n"); > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > + rot->limit_tbl = (struct rot_limit_table *)match->data; > > + } else { > > + dev_err(dev, "cannot find binding\n"); > > What about having a check for !dev->of_node at the beginning of probe, > to not complicate further code? I agree with your comment. I'll move it at the beginning. > > Also the error message is confusing. It should be something closer to > "device does not have of_node". I'll change it to avoid confusing. Thanks. > > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > > > rot->regs_res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > > rot->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, rot->regs_res); @@ -718,31 > > +796,6 @@ static int rotator_remove(struct platform_device > > *pdev) return 0; > > } > > > > -static struct rot_limit_table rot_limit_tbl = { > > - .ycbcr420_2p = { > > - .min_w = 32, > > - .min_h = 32, > > - .max_w = SZ_32K, > > - .max_h = SZ_32K, > > - .align = 3, > > - }, > > - .rgb888 = { > > - .min_w = 8, > > - .min_h = 8, > > - .max_w = SZ_8K, > > - .max_h = SZ_8K, > > - .align = 2, > > - }, > > -}; > > - > > -static struct platform_device_id rotator_driver_ids[] = { > > - { > > - .name = "exynos-rot", > > - .driver_data = (unsigned long)&rot_limit_tbl, > > - }, > > - {}, > > -}; > > - > > static int rotator_clk_crtl(struct rot_context *rot, bool enable) { > > if (enable) { > > @@ -804,10 +857,10 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops rotator_pm_ops = > > { struct platform_driver rotator_driver = { > > .probe = rotator_probe, > > .remove = rotator_remove, > > - .id_table = rotator_driver_ids, > > .driver = { > > .name = "exynos-rot", > > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > .pm = &rotator_pm_ops, > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_rotator_match), > > }, > > }; > > Otherwise looks fine. > > One more thing is that IMHO patch 5/5 could be squashed with this one, > so documentation for the binding would be available at the same it is > introduced. Yes. it seems to be better consolidating patch1 and 5. I'll apply it to next patch. Thanks. > > Best regards, > Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
