> 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?
>
correct Paul. I will remove it.
>> +/**
>> + * 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.
>
yes, you got it right.
these 2 routines use the vops structure, that binds the driver and the
variant (in our case qcom)
thanks for your time, Paul
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paul Bolle
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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
