On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:37 +0300, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufs_hba_qcom_vops);
Nothing uses this export. It's still a (static) symbol that is not
included in any header. I think this export serves no purpose. Am I
missing something subtle here?
> +/**
> + * ufs_qcom_probe - probe routine of the driver
> + * @pdev: pointer to Platform device handle
> + *
> + * Always return 0
> + */
> +static int ufs_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, (void *)&ufs_hba_qcom_vops);
(Cast to void * should not be needed.)
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * ufs_qcom_remove - set driver_data of the device to NULL
> + * @pdev: pointer to platform device handle
> + *
> + * Always return 0
> + */
> +static int ufs_qcom_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id ufs_qcom_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "qcom,ufs_variant"},
> + {},
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver ufs_qcom_pltform = {
> + .probe = ufs_qcom_probe,
> + .remove = ufs_qcom_remove,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "ufs_qcom",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ufs_qcom_of_match),
> + },
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(ufs_qcom_pltform);
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + struct device_node *ufs_variant_node;
> + struct platform_device *ufs_variant_pdev;
> - 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);
(Another cast that I think is not needed.)
> + }
If I scanned this correctly, the dev_set_drvdata() and dev_get_drvdata()
pair adds an actual user of ufs_hba_qcom_vops. So that ends the obvious
issue I think the code currently has. And I gladly defer to the scsi
people to determine whether that is done the right way.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
--
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
