On 25/03/15 07:16, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:30:19PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
This patch adds just consumers part of the framework just to enable easy
review.
Up until now, EEPROM drivers were stored in drivers/misc, where they all had to
duplicate pretty much the same code to register a sysfs file, allow in-kernel
users to access the content of the devices they were driving, etc.
This was also a problem as far as other in-kernel users were involved, since
the solutions used were pretty much different from on driver to another, there
was a rather big abstraction leak.
This introduction of this framework aims at solving this. It also introduces DT
representation for consumer devices to go get the data they require (MAC
Addresses, SoC/Revision ID, part numbers, and so on) from the EEPROMs.
Having regmap interface to this framework would give much better
abstraction for eeproms on different buses.
Thanks for working on this. This is something that is missing in the
kernel, it looks very promising to me.
Some comments inline
+static struct eeprom_cell *__eeprom_cell_get(struct device_node *cell_np,
+ const char *ename,
+ struct eeprom_block *blocks,
+ int nblocks)
+{
+ struct eeprom_cell *cell;
+ struct eeprom_device *eeprom = NULL;
No need to initialize.
Sure.. Will fix it.
+ struct property *prop;
+ const __be32 *vp;
+ u32 pv;
+ int i, rval;
+
+ mutex_lock(&eeprom_mutex);
+
+ eeprom = cell_np ? of_eeprom_find(cell_np->parent) : eeprom_find(ename);
+ if (!eeprom) {
+ mutex_unlock(&eeprom_mutex);
+ return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
+ }
+
+/**
+ * of_eeprom_cell_get(): Get eeprom cell of device form a given index
+ *
+ * @dev: Device that will be interacted with
+ * @index: eeprom index in eeproms property.
+ *
+ * The return value will be an ERR_PTR() on error or a valid pointer
+ * to a struct eeprom_cell. The eeprom_cell will be freed by the
+ * eeprom_cell_put().
+ */
+struct eeprom_cell *of_eeprom_cell_get(struct device *dev, int index)
+{
I think the consumer API could be improved. The dev pointer is only used
to get the struct device_node out of it, so the device_node could be
passed in directly. As written in my other mail I think the binding
would be better like "calibration = <&tsens_calibration>;", so this
function could be:
of_eeprom_cell_get(struct device_node *np, const char *name)
With this we could also get eeprom cells from subnodes which do not have
a struct device bound to them.
Its a good point, I will give it a try and see.
+ struct device_node *cell_np;
+
+ if (!dev || !dev->of_node)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
+ cell_np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "eeproms", index);
+ if (!cell_np)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
-EPROBE_DEFER is not appropriate here. If of_parse_phandle fails it
won't work next time.
That's right, if it cant parse it now, it would also fail next time too.
Will fix it in next version.
+
+ return __eeprom_cell_get(cell_np, NULL, NULL, 0);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_eeprom_cell_get);
+
+/**
+ * eeprom_cell_write(): Write to a given eeprom cell
+ *
+ * @cell: eeprom cell to be written.
+ * @buf: Buffer to be written.
+ * @len: length of buffer to be written to eeprom cell.
+ *
+ * The return value will be an non zero on error or a zero on successful write.
No, it returns the length.
Yes, thats true, will fix it in next version.
+ */
+int eeprom_cell_write(struct eeprom_cell *cell, const char *buf, ssize_t len)
+{
+ struct eeprom_device *eeprom = cell->eeprom;
+ int i, rc, offset = 0;
+
+ if (!eeprom || !eeprom->regmap || len != cell->size)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < cell->nblocks; i++) {
+ rc = regmap_bulk_write(eeprom->regmap, cell->blocks[i].offset,
+ buf + offset,
+ cell->blocks[i].count);
+
+ if (IS_ERR_VALUE(rc))
+ return rc;
+
+ offset += cell->blocks[i].count;
+ }
+
+ return len;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeprom_cell_write);
+
+static inline char *eeprom_cell_read(struct eeprom_cell *cell, ssize_t *len)
+{
+ return NULL;
+}
The documentation above the real function states that this function
either returns an ERR_PTR() or a valid pointer. The wrapper should then
do the same.
Will fix this in next version.
Sascha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
