On 08/18/10 18:29, Pavan Savoy wrote: > Randy, > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/18/10 15:46, Savoy, Pavan wrote: >>> 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 do 50 X86 randconfig builds per night (scripted, while I sleep). >> As long as STAGING is enabled and RFKILL is enabled, then TI_ST can be enabled, >> so usually it fails to build. >> >>> 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. >> >> That is irrelevant. It's now in mainline and it is causing build failures. >> >>> May be a patch which does 'default N' in drivers/staging/ti-st/Kconfig, would suffice? >> >> Nope. >> >>> Please suggest... >> >>>>>>>> ERROR: "st_get_plat_device" [drivers/staging/ti-st/st_drv.ko] undefined! >> >> st_get_plat_device will have to be defined for any build platform, >> or not referenced, or make it not possible to enable TI_ST unless >> st_get_plat_device is defined. > > I was thinking as to why do I even have this platform device reference > via an exported symbol, > and thanks for pointing out, I don't even need this function > "st_get_plat_device()". > I already have the platform_device reference in my _probe function !!!.. > I will send out a patch 2morrow. That's all good to hear. > This actually sorts of clarifies how I support multiple devices too... > This is how my probe would then look like ... > static int kim_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > .... > ... > platform_devices_i_have[id] = pdev; > ..... > .... > } > > and st_get_plat_device(int id) would be defined as... > { > return platform_devices_i_have[id]; > } > > Does this sound ok ? Sounds OK, but let's see the patch (tomorrow). thanks, -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
