On 29 July 2015 at 08:14, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28 July 2015 at 17:31, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 28 July 2015 at 15:39, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>>>> <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> From an arbitrary node in the tree, find the enclosing node that
>>>>> corresponds to a platform device, as registered by
>>>>> of_platform_populate().
>>>>>
>>>>> This can be used to find out what device needs to be probed so the
>>>>> dependency described by a given node is made available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> - Move the logic for finding a platform device from its firmware node to
>>>>> of/platform.c as it's not needed for ACPI nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/of/platform.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/linux/of_platform.h | 1 +
>>>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>>> index ff27494cda8c..89c5cd513027 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>>>> @@ -501,6 +501,66 @@ void of_platform_depopulate(struct device *parent)
>>>>> }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_platform_depopulate);
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool of_is_platform(struct device_node *np)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int count;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + count = of_property_count_strings(np, "compatible");
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* The node has to have a compatible string */
>>>>> + if (!count)
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* But it cannot be just a simple memory-mapped bus */
>>>>> + if (count == 1 && of_match_node(of_default_bus_match_table, np))
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* But AMBA devices aren't platform devices */
>>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "arm,primecell"))
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Node is immediately below root */
>>>>> + if (!np->parent || !np->parent->parent)
>>>>> + return true;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If it's a node in a simple memory-mapped bus */
>>>>> + if (of_match_node(of_default_bus_match_table, np->parent))
>>>>> + return true;
>>>>
>>>> This seems really fragile.
>>>
>>> I think this finding logic matches the logic for registering platform
>>> devices in of_platform_populate and also what is documented in
>>> Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt.
>>
>> Right. So now we have that logic in 2 places. One is descending from
>> the root and one is walking up from the child. That's an opportunity
>> for some mismatch.
>
> Definitely.
>
>>>> What about platform devices which are
>>>> children of MFDs but are not "simple-mfd"?
>>>
>>> This code should deal fine with those (the boards I tested with do
>>> have them). It probes the mfd master, and that in turn will call
>>> mfd_add_devices causing the target device to be probed.
>>
>> I don't see how this function would ever return true in this case
>> unless you put the MFD at the root level. The only other way to return
>> true is matching on of_default_bus_match_table for the parent (i.e.
>> the MFD).
>
> Oops, you are right.
>
>>>> Does of_find_device_by_node not work for you?
>>>
>>> Well, the dependencies aren't always platform devices, that's why I
>>> need to go up the tree until I find a node that corresponds to a
>>> platform device that I can query and probe.
>>>
>>> If I had a way to get, say, a i2c device from its fwnode then I would
>>> just need to make sure that a device's parent is probed before probing
>>> it and everything would be cleaner in the OF case.
>>
>> If you have the struct device from the device_node, then you should be
>> able to do this, right?
>
> Yes, if I could go back from the device_node to the struct device that
> was registered from it, for all buses, then all this would be much
> simpler and more robust. It would basically work like in the ACPI
> case.
>
> I will play with this idea.
>
>>>> That is probably not the
>>>> most efficient search, but we could fix that. We could add struct
>>>> device ptr to struct device_node and check without searching for
>>>> example.
>>>
>>> That would be great, but I thought there was an issue with a OF node
>>> being able to be related to more than one struct device (but I haven't
>>> found this myself yet).
>>
>> I think it pretty much should be one to one. I'm not aware of any
>> examples where that is not the case. This function would already be
>> broken if you could have more than one struct device.
>
> Well, for platform devices we currently know that there can only be
> one struct device for a given device_node, but that's not so clear for
> other devices.
Just found this case:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c#L1124
Looks like SPI master devices point to the same device_node as the
platform device that registers them.
Regards,
Tomeu
>> There is an issue where you could have 2 drivers match the same node,
>> but on different compatible strings. But that's a different issue.
>
> Yup.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tomeu
>
>> Rob
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
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
