Hi, On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:28:14PM +0000, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 16:53:03, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a few comments on the devicetree binding and the way it's parsed. > > > > Thanks for review. > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:33:06AM +0000, Manjunathappa, Prakash wrote: [...] > > > +- caps: Check for Host capabilities in <linux/mmc/host.h> > > > > Is this a set of binary flags? Also, is this Linux-specific? > > > > I really don't think this should be in the devicetree binding. Why do you need > > this? > > > > I was using this to specify the below controller capabilities: > MMC_CAP_MMC_HIGHSPEED and MMC_CAP_SD_HIGHSPEED, > Found from discussion[1] that this can be derived from max-frequency, > That is above capabilities are supported when max-frequency >= 50MHz. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/15/231 Great! [...] > > > @@ -1156,16 +1157,75 @@ static void __init init_mmcsd_host(struct mmc_davinci_host *host) > > > > > > mmc_davinci_reset_ctrl(host, 0); > > > } > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > > > +static struct davinci_mmc_config > > > + *mmc_of_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > +{ > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > + struct davinci_mmc_config *pdata = NULL; > > > + u32 data; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data; > > > + if (!pdata) { > > > + pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!pdata) { > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate memory for struct davinci_mmc_config\n"); > > > + goto nodata; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > Why do you need to conditionally allocate this? This only seems to be called > > once. > > > > This is common function for DT and non-DT kernel(will be removing #ifdef CONFIG_OF), > So above check is necessary for to allocate pdata for DT kernel. Ah. Am I right in thinking if you moved the check for pdev->dev.of_node above the pdata allocation, it wouldn't have to be done conditionally? > > > > + > > > + np = pdev->dev.of_node; > > > + if (!np) > > > + goto nodata; > > > > Why not just return immediately here? You do nothing special at nodata. > > > > Following convention to not have more than 1 return from function and have > Common exit point. May not be necessary now since we have devm_* calls now. > Can I still prefer to keep this goto? It just looks a little odd to me. I have no strong feelings here. [...] > > > + > > > + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "version", &data); > > > + if (ret) > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "version not specified\n"); > > > + pdata->version = data; > > > > And again, though I'd prefer to see this property go entirely. > > > > Yes this is going to go away. Great! > > > > + > > > +nodata: > > > + return pdata; > > > +} > > > + > > > +#else > > > +static struct davinci_mmc_config > > > + *mmc_of_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > +{ > > > + return pdev->dev.platform_data; > > > +} > > > +#endif > > > > This is poorly named if it's required for !CONFIG_OF. > > > > Why not change this to something like mmc_parse_pdata, returning an > > error code. For !CONFIG_OF, it can simply return 0, which should be less > > surprising for anyone else reading this code. > > > > I will remove #ifdef CONFIG_OF conditional compilation and consideration > your suggestion to name function as mmc_parse_pdata. Sounds good. > > > > > > > static int __init davinci_mmcsd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > { > > > - struct davinci_mmc_config *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data; > > > + struct davinci_mmc_config *pdata = NULL; > > > struct mmc_davinci_host *host = NULL; > > > struct mmc_host *mmc = NULL; > > > struct resource *r, *mem = NULL; > > > int ret = 0, irq = 0; > > > size_t mem_size; > > > > > > + pdata = mmc_of_get_pdata(pdev); > > > + if (pdata == NULL) { > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can not get platform data\n"); > > > + return -ENOENT; > > > + } > > > + > > > /* REVISIT: when we're fully converted, fail if pdata is NULL */ > > > > > > ret = -ENODEV; > > > @@ -1403,11 +1463,18 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops davinci_mmcsd_pm = { > > > #define davinci_mmcsd_pm_ops NULL > > > #endif > > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id davinci_mmc_of_match[] = { > > > + {.compatible = "ti,davinci_mmc", }, > > > + {}, > > > +}; > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, davinci_mmc_of_match); > > > > For supporting multiple versions, you could either use some auxdata > > here, or check each one in davince_mmcsd_probe. > > > > I will consider keeping auxdata via compatible field. > > > > + > > > static struct platform_driver davinci_mmcsd_driver = { > > > .driver = { > > > .name = "davinci_mmc", > > > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > > .pm = davinci_mmcsd_pm_ops, > > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(davinci_mmc_of_match), > > > }, > > > .remove = __exit_p(davinci_mmcsd_remove), > > > }; > > > > Where does davinci_mmcsd_probe get called from, and how is the > > of_match_table used? Should it not be set as .probe on the driver? > > > > Driver probe is registered in module_init. Ah, I'd missed the module_init when scanning through the code. I couldn't figure out how davinci_mmcsd_probe got called for elements matched by the match table. I see platform_driver_probe temporarily sets the .probe on the driver, so that makes sense now. > And are you suggesting me to use module_platform_driver? If yes can it not > be taken separately as it is unrelated to DT support I am adding. No, I'd just managed to miss that which got called via module_init. It should be fine as-is. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
