> 2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hi Yaniv,
>>>
>>> 2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> @@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - hba->vops = get_variant_ops(&pdev->dev);
>>>> + err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>>>> + "%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n",
>>>> __func__);
>>>> +
>>>> + ufs_variant_node = of_get_next_available_child(node, NULL);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!ufs_variant_node) {
>>>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to find ufs_variant_node
>>>> child\n");
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + ufs_variant_pdev =
>>>> of_find_device_by_node(ufs_variant_node);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ufs_variant_pdev)
>>>> + hba->vops = (struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *)
>>>> +
>>>> dev_get_drvdata(&ufs_variant_pdev->dev);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I have no strong objection to 'ufs_variant' sub-node. But why can't we
>>> simply add an of_device_id to ufs_of_match, like below:
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id ufs_of_match[] = {
>>> { .compatible = "jedec,ufs-1.1"},
>>> #if IS_ENABLED(SCSI_UFS_QCOM)
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,ufs", .data = &ufs_hba_qcom_vops },
>>> #neidf
>>> {},
>>> };
>>>
>>> and get hba->vops by get_variant_ops()?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Mita,
>> thanks for your comments.
>>
>> The whole idea, of having a sub-node which includes all variant specific
>> attributes is to separate the UFS Platform device component, from the
>> need
>> to know "qcom" or any other future variant.
>> I believe it keeps the code more modular, and clean - meaning - no
>> #ifdef's and no need to include all variant attributes inside the driver
>> DT node.
>> in that case, we simply have a DT node that is compatible to the Jdec
>> standard, and sub-node to include variant info.
>>
>> I hope you agree with this new design, since it provides a good answer
>> to every future variant that will be added, without the need to change
>> the
>> platform file.
>
> Thanks for your explanation, I agree with it.
>
> I found two problems in the current code, but both can be fixed
> relatively easily as described below:
>
> 1) If ufshcd-pltfrm driver is loaded before ufs-qcom driver,
> ufshcd_pltfrm_probe() can't find a ufs_variant device.
>
> In order to trigger re-probing ufs device when ufs-qcom driver has
> been loaded, ufshcd_pltfrm_probe() should return -EPROBE_DEFER in
> case 'ufs_variant' sub-node exists and no hba->vops found.
>
> 2) Nothing prevents ufs-qcom module from being unloaded while the
> variant_ops is referenced by ufshcd-pltfrm.
>
> It can be fixed by incrementing module refcount of ufs_variant module
> by __module_get(ufs_variant_pdev->dev.driver->owener) in
> ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(), and module_put() in ufshcd_pltfrm_remove()
> to descrement the refcount.
>
again, Mita, your comments are very appreciated.
1)
If ufshcd-pltfrm driver is loaded before ufs-qcom, (what actually happens
always), then the calling to of_platform_populate() which is added,
guarantees that ufs-qcom probe will be called and finish, before
ufshcd_pltfrm probe continues.
so ufs_variant device is always there, and ready.
I think it means we are safe - since either way, we make sure ufs-qcom
probe will be called and finish before dealing with ufs_variant device in
ufshcd_pltfrm probe.
2) you are right. the fix added as you suggested.
let us know your thoughts about the V3 once it's uploaded
thanks
--
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
