* Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx> [150310 09:11]: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 March 2015 16:31:33 Eliad Peller wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:00:19 Eliad Peller wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > I was expecting you to remove all calls to legacy_init_wl12xx from this file, > >> >> >> > including the ones for wl12xx aside from the wl18xx ones you removed, but > >> >> >> > if that's enough to clean out the platform_data handling from the wlcore > >> >> >> > driver, it's good enough as a start. > >> >> >> not sure i'm following - can you elaborate? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> i'll summarize the way i see it. please correct me if i'm wrong. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> both wl18xx and wl12xx use the platform data to get the irq number. > >> >> >> wl12xx (only) also needs some additional clock definitions to be > >> >> >> passed. there's currently some issue with specifying some the of clock > >> >> >> sources, so i preferred starting only with (the simpler) wl18xx > >> >> >> bindings. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> for platforms with wl18xx, we can remove the pdata-quirk, as all the > >> >> >> data (i.e. irq) can be passed by the new DT bindings. > >> >> >> however, for platforms with wl12xx, we still need to pass the clock > >> >> >> definitions (along with the irq), so we have to keep > >> >> >> legacy_init_wl12xx for the time being (and that's also why we have to > >> >> >> currently keep the platform_data handling in the wlcore driver) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> do you have something else in mind? > >> >> > > >> >> > I think what Arnd is saying is we've now removed all the wl12xx using > >> >> > legacy platforms, so all of them can boot with just data from dts. > >> > > >> > Right, that was my idea. > >> > > >> >> I don't think that's the case (unless i'm missing something). > >> >> e.g. there's still pdata-quirk for "compulab,omap3-sbc-t3730" which > >> >> initializes wl12xx device. > >> > > >> > This one is just like the igep0030, as Tony was saying: the board > >> > boots from device tree already, so now that we have a binding for > >> > it, we can remove the wl12xx_set_platform_data() for it. > >> > > >> i think the wl12xx_set_platform_data() name created some confusion - > >> it is used to pass platform data for both wl12xx and wl18xx devices. > >> (this confusion is all around the wlcore driver as well, due to the > >> code evolution) > >> > >> the binding i added is for wl18xx only (there is no wl12xx binding yet). > >> the remaining boards, AFAICT, have wl12xx (rather than wl18xx) cards. > >> so i don't see how we can remove these wl12xx_set_platform_data() > >> calls before we have wl12xx bindings in-place as well. > > > > What is missing for that binding then? I keep getting confused here, > > but I thought that they share the implementation that looks at the > > platform data. > > > they both get the same wl12xx_platform_data struct, but only wl12xx > cares about the clocks-related fields. > the bindings i added parses only the irq. > > (Luca tried previously to upstream wl12xx DT support along with the > required clock DT changes, but got some rejections, mainly wrt. clock > stuff. > e.g. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1520752 > that's why i preferred starting with "easier" wl18xx bindings only) I believe we did not have clock bindings back then, now it's simple to get the clock. If it's some internal clock to the wl12xx, then that's a different story, it should be just hidden behind a compatible flag then. Regards, Tony -- 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
