On 10/14/24 5:08 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Change to obtain the fdt use case as reported in the > adi,ad3552r.yaml file in this patchset. > > The DAC device is defined as a child node of the backend. > Registering the child fdt node as a platform devices. > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c > index b887c6343f96..f85e3138d428 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ > #include <linux/iio/buffer.h> > #include <linux/iio/iio.h> > > +#include "ad3552r-hs.h" > + > /* > * Register definitions: > * https://wiki.analog.com/resources/fpga/docs/axi_dac_ip#register_map > @@ -738,6 +740,39 @@ static int axi_dac_bus_reg_read(struct iio_backend *back, u32 reg, u32 *val, > return regmap_read(st->regmap, AXI_DAC_CUSTOM_RD_REG, val); > } > > +static void axi_dac_child_remove(void *data) > +{ > + struct platform_device *pdev = data; > + > + platform_device_unregister(pdev); > +} > + > +static int axi_dac_create_platform_device(struct axi_dac_state *st, > + struct fwnode_handle *child) > +{ > + struct ad3552r_hs_platform_data pdata = { > + .bus_reg_read = axi_dac_bus_reg_read, > + .bus_reg_write = axi_dac_bus_reg_write, > + }; > + struct platform_device_info pi = { > + .parent = st->dev, > + .name = fwnode_get_name(child), > + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, > + .fwnode = child, > + .data = &pdata, > + .size_data = sizeof(pdata), > + }; > + struct platform_device *pdev; > + > + pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pi); > + if (IS_ERR(pdev)) > + return PTR_ERR(pdev); > + > + device_set_node(&pdev->dev, child); Not sure why Nuno suggested adding device_set_node(). It is redundant since platform_device_register_full() already does the same thing. (And setting it after platform_device_register_full() would be too late anyway since drivers may have already probed.) > + > + return devm_add_action_or_reset(st->dev, axi_dac_child_remove, pdev); > +} > + > static const struct iio_backend_ops axi_dac_generic_ops = { > .enable = axi_dac_enable, > .disable = axi_dac_disable, > @@ -874,6 +909,24 @@ static int axi_dac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, > "failed to register iio backend\n"); > > + device_for_each_child_node_scoped(&pdev->dev, child) { > + int val; > + > + /* Processing only reg 0 node */ > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &val); > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, > + "child node missing."); Shouldn't the error message say that there is a problem with the reg property? We already have a handle to the child node, so the child node isn't missing. > + if (val != 0) > + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, > + "invalid node address."); > + > + ret = axi_dac_create_platform_device(st, child); > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, > + "could not create device."); > + } > + > dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AXI DAC IP core (%d.%.2d.%c) probed\n", > ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(ver), > ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(ver), >
