On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:17:40 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>> This extends the unified device property interface by adding
>> "Generic Property" to it for cases where device tree or ACPI
>> are not being used.
>>
>> That makes the unified device property interface cover also
>> most of the cases where information is extracted from custom
>> platform_data in the drivers. So if before we had to check
>> separately is there custom platform_data for a driver:
>>
>> if (pdata)
>> bar = pdata->bar;
>> else
>> device_property_read_u32(dev, "foo", &bar);
>>
>> we can now drop that check and simply always use the unified
>> device property interface.
>>
>> That makes it possible to drop a lot of boiler plate from
>> the drivers, plus quite a few header files under
>> include/linux/ describing those driver specific platform
>> data structures can be removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>> @@ -704,6 +705,7 @@ struct acpi_dev_node {
>> * @archdata: For arch-specific additions.
>> * @of_node: Associated device tree node.
>> * @acpi_node: Associated ACPI device node.
>> + * @gen_prop: Generic device property
>> * @devt: For creating the sysfs "dev".
>> * @id: device instance
>> * @devres_lock: Spinlock to protect the resource of the device.
>> @@ -780,6 +782,7 @@ struct device {
>>
>> struct device_node *of_node; /* associated device tree node */
>> struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node; /* associated ACPI device node */
>> + struct dev_gen_prop *gen_prop; /* generic device property */
>
> That doesn't seem to go in the right direction to be honest.
>
> Actually, having introduced struct fwnode_handle, we should perhaps try to
> replace both of_node and acpi_node with a single struct fwnode_handle pointer
> and then add a new fwnode_type for the "pdata" stuff.
I agree on this, but it will be a lot of work to convert...
> If you don't want to deal with of_node, which I can understand easily, it
> may be worth trying with acpi_node alone at this point and once you have
> the fwnode_handle pointer, you might use it for both ACPI and "pdata"?
>
> Grant, Arnd, I wonder what you think?
That makes sense, and we can populate the fwnode_handle even when
using DT. That will allow a transition period to move everyone over to
the fwnode_handle.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
