On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> n 02/05/2013 04:42 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
>> Use the compatible string in the device tree to determine which
>> registers/functions to use in the HDMI driver. Also changes the
>> references from v13 to 4210 and v14 to 4212 to reflect the IP
>> block version instead of the HDMI version.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/exynos/hdmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/exynos/hdmi.txt
>
> Binding looks sane to me.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c
>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> static struct of_device_id hdmi_match_types[] = {
>> {
>> - .compatible = "samsung,exynos5-hdmi",
>> - .data = (void *)HDMI_TYPE14,
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos4-hdmi",
>> }, {
>> /* end node */
>> }
>
> Why not fill in all the "base" compatible values there (I think you need
> this anyway so that DTs don't all have to be compatible with
> samsung,exynos4-hdmi), with .data containing the HDMI_VER_EXYNOS*
> values, then ...
>
At the moment, all DTs have to be compatible with exynos4-hdmi since
it provides the base for the current driver. The driver uses 4210 and
4212 to differentiate between different register addresses and
features, but most things are just exynos4-hdmi compatible.
>> @@ -2218,17 +2217,18 @@ static int hdmi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>> +
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos4210-hdmi"))
>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4210;
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos4212-hdmi"))
>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4212;
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos5250-hdmi"))
>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS5250;
>
> Instead of that, do roughly:
>
> match = of_match_device(hdmi_match_types, &pdev->dev);
> if (match)
> hdata->version |= (int)match->data;
>
> That way, it's all table-based. Any future additions to
> hdmi_match_types[] won't require another if statement to be added to
> probe().
I don't think it's that easy. of_match_device returns the first match
from the device table, so I'd still need to iterate through the
matches. I could still break this out into a table, but I don't think
of_match_device is the right way to probe it.
Sean
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
