On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:06:03 +0100
, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2014 23:53:28 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 01, 2014 05:13:45 AM Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Gilad Avidov <gavidov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Device-Tree compact API
> > > > ------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Common code seen in driverâ??s probe reads device tree values and handling
> > > > erroneous return codes from all those of_property_read_xxx() APIs. This
> > > > common code is factored out by the of_property_map module which allows
> > > > driverâ??s probe to replace that (often lengthy) code with a concise table:
> > > >
> > > > struct of_prop_map map[] = {
> > > > {"i2c", &dev->id, OF_REQ, OF_ID, -1},
> > > > {"qcom,clk-freq-out", &dev->clk_freq_out, OF_REQ, OF_U32, 0},
> > > > {"qcom,clk-freq-in", &dev->clk_freq_in, OF_REQ, OF_U32, 0},
> > > > {"qcom,disable-dma", &dev->disable_dma, OF_OPT, OF_BOOL, 0},
> > > > {"qcom,master-id", &dev->mstr_id, OF_SGST, OF_U32, 0},
> > > > {NULL, NULL, 0, 0, 0},
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > Then call populate to read the values into the deviceâ??s variables:
> > > >
> > > > ret = of_prop_populate(dev, dev->of_node, map);
> > >
> > > Interesting idea. The main concern I have with this is there has been
> > > on-going discussions about how to generalize property handling across
> > > DT and ACPI to make drivers more agnostic, so I'm copying a few folks
> > > involved in that. That may be a bit orthogonal to what this is doing,
> > > but we may want some coordination here.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > We actually have a patchset adding a unified device property API in
> > linux-next (http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=device-properties)
> > and I'd prefer to see the "compactization" to happen at that level, if possible,
> > rather that for of_ only.
>
> Agreed, this should definitely use the new generalized API.
> I have prototyped a similar concept last year, which actually went much
> further and also abstracted high-level properties such as interrupts,
> gpios, pwm, dma-engine, etc. I still think we should do something
> like that, but I've never had the time to follow up and nobody else
> picked up my work from back then.
>
> Would others like to see that?
Absolutely. I also tried to do the same thing and didn't get very far.
And, yes, it should be done at the level of the device properties API.
g.
--
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
