Randy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Dunlap [mailto:randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:05 PM > To: Savoy, Pavan > Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers:staging:ti-st: patches > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:37:02 +0530 Pavan Savoy wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On 07/22/10 21:56, Pavan Savoy wrote: > > >> Randy, > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:32:04 -0500 pavan_savoy@xxxxxx wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> From: Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@xxxxxx> > > >>>> > > >>>> The following patches cleanup bit of a mess and also adds functionality > to protocol drivers. > > >>>> with the 3rd patch now providing context to even the protocol drivers, > the single device limit > > >>>> or support for multiple devices would be easier to implement. > > >>>> > > >>>> These patches depend on the previously submitted > > >>>> 0001-drivers-staging-ti-st-make-use-of-linux-err-codes.patch > > >>>> commit d39d49b393d94f4137cee4f64526a4695352f183 > > >>>> > > >>>> Pavan Savoy (3): > > >>>> drivers:staging:ti-st: smarten, reduce logs > > >>>> drivers:staging:ti-st: cleanup code comments > > >>>> drivers:staging:ti-st: give proto drivers context > > >>>> > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/bt_drv.c | 23 +++++--- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st.h | 52 +++++++++-------- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++------------ > -------- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.h | 74 +++++++++++++++++-------- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.c | 73 ++++++++++++++---------- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.h | 77 ++++++++++++++++--------- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.c | 4 +- > > >>>> drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.h | 9 +++- > > >>>> 8 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> I have reported this error a few times. Where is the patch for it?? > > >>> > > >>> ERROR: "st_get_plat_device" [drivers/staging/ti-st/st_drv.ko] undefined! > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, on one of the earlier patch sets, I had mentioned that the ST > > >> driver being a platform device, needs definition in any of the > > >> arch/XX/mach-XX/board-XX.c or devices.c or somewhere... > > >> > > >> and hence it is in that board-XX.c file that the symbol > > >> st_get_plat_device needs to be exported, the reason for that being, > > >> > > >> ST driver being both a TTY ldisc driver and platform driver, in TTY > > >> contexts it would need to refer to platform driver's data. So it does > > >> a st_get_plat_device which returns the platform device structure, and > > >> then does a dev_getdrvdata from it. > > >> > > >> here's a snippet of code ... > > >> /* > > >> * ST related functions related functions > > >> */ > > >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > >> > > >> long gpios[] = { 55, -1, -1 }; > > >> static struct platform_device ti_st_device = { > > >> .name = "kim", > > >> .id = -1, > > >> .dev.platform_data = &gpios, > > >> }; > > >> > > >> struct platform_device *st_get_plat_device(void) > > >> { > > >> return &ti_st_device; > > >> } > > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(st_get_plat_device); > > >> > > >> static __init int add_ti_st_device(void) > > >> { > > >> platform_device_register(&ti_st_device); > > >> dev_info(&ti_st_device.dev,"registered platform TI ST device\n"); > > >> > > >> return 0; > > >> } > > >> device_initcall(add_ti_st_device); > > >> > > >> > > >> We have that in our local trees in arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-sdp4430.c > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > Is the driver platform-specific? > > > E.g., should it not even be built on x86? > > > > Yes. Requirement of the hardware is very much a must. > > However it is a separate peripheral (WiLink 7 - uart interfaced), may > > be there is a x86 platform with this - but certainly not desktops. > > > > on linux-next, I generally put in that st_dev.c file for x86 - verify > > whether it builds as a module, inserts/rmmod, basic other > > functionalities (which doesn't involve response from chip..) > > But verify full functionality on board which constitutes that. > > Hi, > Please make this driver build cleanly on X86 or prevent it from being built > there. Do you do something like a make allyesconfig? I am having a hard time figuring out why is it building for you in the first place? make defconfig doesn't build it, neither does make i386_defconfig. May be a patch which does 'default N' in drivers/staging/ti-st/Kconfig, would suffice? Please suggest... > thanks, > --- > ~Randy > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
