On 1/21/2016 9:16 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 06:11:36PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Simplify the mipi dsi device creation process. device_initialize and
"MIPI" and "DSI", please.
Sure, I'll replace with these and in the other patches.
device_add don't need to be called separately when creating
mipi_dsi_device's. Use device_register instead to simplify things.
Create a helper function mipi_dsi_device_new which takes in struct
mipi_dsi_device_info and mipi_dsi_host. It clubs the functions
mipi_dsi_device_alloc and mipi_dsi_device_add into one.
mipi_dsi_device_info acts as a template to populate the dsi device
information. This is populated by of_mipi_dsi_device_add and passed to
mipi_dsi_device_new.
Later on, we'll provide mipi_dsi_device_new as a standalone way to create
a dsi device not available via DT.
The new device creation process tries to closely follow what's been done
in i2c_new_device in i2c-core.
Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------
include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 15 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
To be honest, I'm not sure I like this. If you want to have a simpler
helper, why not implement it using the lower-level helpers. Really the
only thing you're doing here is add a high-level helper that takes an
info struct, whereas previously the same would be done by storing the
info directly in the structure between allocation and addition of the
device.
Initially the implementation was following that of platform devices, I
see no reason to deviate from that. What you want here can easily be
I don't see why we need to call device_initialize and device_add
separately for DSI devices. From my (limited) understanding, we should
call these separately if we want to take a reference (using
get_device()), or set up some private data before the bus's
notifier kicks in.
Since the main purpose of the series is not to simplify the device
creation code, I can drop this.
done by something like:
struct mipi_dsi_device *
mipi_dsi_device_register_full(struct mipi_dsi_host *host,
const struct mipi_dsi_device_info *info)
{
struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi;
dsi = mipi_dsi_device_alloc(host);
if (IS_ERR(dsi))
return dsi;
dsi->dev.of_node = info->node;
dsi->channel = info->channel;
err = mipi_dsi_device_add(dsi);
if (err < 0) {
...
}
return dsi;
}
Thierry
This does look less intrusive. I'll consider switching to this.
Thanks,
Archit
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
