On 12/10/2012 12:13 PM, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 16:07:23, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
>> On 11/29/2012 5:16 PM, Philip, Avinash wrote:
[...]
>>> +struct device *elm_request(enum bch_ecc bch_type)
>>> +{
>>> + struct elm_info *info;
>>> +
>>> + list_for_each_entry(info, &elm_devices, list) {
>>> + if (info && info->dev) {
>>> + info->bch_type = bch_type;
>>> + elm_config(info);
>>> + return info->dev;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> This will always return the first ELM device probed since you never
>> remove the allocated device from the list.
>
> But now I realized that, there is no mechanism of freeing the requested
> resource.
Right. You essentially want to assign an ELM instance to work with a
given instance of GPMC and that could be done statically too. Just pass
phandle of ELM node in GPMC DT data?
> So I will add mechanism to request ELM module successfully only if ELM
> module is not requested already and add mechanism to free it, on NAND
> driver module unload (loadable module support). This way ELM driver
> can achieve multi instance support.
>
>> I wonder why you really need a list?
>
> The prime motivation for the list is the driver should support multi
> instances of ELM by removing global symbols.
I still think a request/free API is bit too much for something that will
turn out to be a simple 1-to-1 match anyway. Can you please look at the
phandle suggestion above? I am no DT expert, but I think that will work
for your use case.
Thanks,
Sekhar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
