* Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx> [150310 10:01]: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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. > > > i'm really not familiar with the common clock framework, but there > still doesn't seem to be a way to determine whether a clock is XTAL or > not (which is what Luca's patch was about). should we use compatible > flag in such case? i'm not sure it sounds right. > > anyway, i'd really prefer, if possible, starting with the wl18xx > bindings, and defer the wl12xx complications to later on. > (i also need to find some wl12xx card in order to actually test the > patches once i'll have them...) > > we do have to make sure these wl18xx bindings are future-compatible > with the wl12xx ones, but i think the current bindings are pretty much > standard (and are actually a subset of the bindings needed by wl12xx), > so it should be fine. Well how about add just the parsing of the clock and assume it's always WL12XX_REFCLOCK_38 for now as that's the only thing we're currently using. Then we can add a property or compatible value if using something else as needed. 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
