On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:46:32PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Sorry I took so long to reply.
>
>
> On 09/04/15 15:45, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >On 04/07, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> >>On 07/04/15 19:45, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>On 03/30, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Do you have an overview of how to use these APIs? Maybe some
> >>>Documentation/ is in order? I'm mostly interested in how the
> >>>blocks array is supposed to work and how this hooks up to drivers
> >>>that are using DT.
> >>
> >>Only doc ATM is function level kernel doc in c file.
> >>May be I can explain you for now and I will try to add some
> >>documentation with some usage examples in next version.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >>
> >>eeprom block array is just another way intended to get hold of
> >>eeprom content for non-DT providers/consumers, but DT
> >>consumers/providers can also use it. As of today SOC/mach level code
> >>could use it as well.
> >>
> >>In eeprom_cell_get() case the lookup of provider is done based on
> >>provider name, this provider name is generally supplied by all the
> >>providers (both DT/non DT).
> >>
> >>for example in qfprom case,
> >>provider is registered from DT with eeprom config containing a unique name:
> >>static struct eeprom_config econfig = {
> >> .name = "qfprom",
> >> .id = 0,
> >>};
> >>
> >>In the consumer case, the tsens driver could do some like in non DT way:
> >>
> >> struct eeprom_block blocks[4] ={
> >> {
> >> .offset = 0x404,
> >> .count = 0x4,
> >> },
> >> {
> >> .offset = 0x408,
> >> .count = 0x4,
> >> },
> >> {
> >> .offset = 0x40c,
> >> .count = 0x4,
> >> },
> >> {
> >> .offset = 0x410,
> >> .count = 0x4,
> >> },
> >> };
> >> calib_cell = eeprom_cell_get("qfprom0", blocks, 4);
> >>
> >>
> >>Or in DT way
> >>calib_cell = of_eeprom_cell_get(np, "calib");
> >>
> >
> >Ok. I guess I was hoping for a more device centric approach like
> >we have for clks/regulators/etc. That way a driver doesn't need
> >to know it's using DT or not to figure out which API to call.
>
> That would be the best. Its easy to wrap up whats in eeprom core to
> eeprom_get_cell(dev, "cell-name") for both DT and non-dt cases, if I
> remove the nasty global name space thing.
>
> Only thing which is limiting it is the existing bindings which are
> just phandle based. For eeprom to be more of device centric we need
> more
> generic bindings/property names like
>
> nvrom-cell = <&abc>, <&edf>
> nvrom-cell-names = "cell1", "cell2";
>
> Also we can have name associated to each eeprom cell which would
> help for non-dt cases. So they can just lookup by the cell name.
>
>
> Sacha, Are you ok with such binding? As this can provide a single
> interface for dt and non-dt. I remember you requested for changing
> from generic properties to specific property names.
Yes, I am fine with such a binding. The same type of binding is used for
clocks and other stuff already, so it has proven good and people are
famliar with it.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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
