Dear Michał Mirosław,
> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>:
> > Dear Michał Mirosław,
> >
> >> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>:
> >> > This patch adds support for i.MX23 into the LRADC driver. The LRADC
> >> > block on MX23 is not much different from the one on MX28, thus this
> >> > is only a few changes fixing the parts that are specific to MX23.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > +struct mxs_lradc_of_config {
> >> > + const int irq_count;
> >> > + const char * const *irq_name;
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[] =
> >> > { + [IMX23_LRADC] = {
> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names),
> >> > + .irq_name = mx23_lradc_irq_names,
> >> > + },
> >> > + [IMX28_LRADC] = {
> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names),
> >> > + .irq_name = mx28_lradc_irq_names,
> >> > + },
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> >
> >> > enum mxs_lradc_ts {
> >> >
> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE = 0,
> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_4WIRE,
> >> >
> >> > @@ -857,8 +890,19 @@ static void mxs_lradc_hw_stop(struct mxs_lradc
> >> > *lradc)
> >> >
> >> > writel(0, lradc->base + LRADC_DELAY(i));
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] = {
> >> > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx23-lradc", .data = (void
> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, + { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-lradc", .data =
> >> > (void
> >> > *)IMX28_LRADC, }, + { /* sentinel */ }
> >> > +};
> >> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mxs_lradc_dt_ids);
> >> > +
> >>
> >> Why not s/(void \*)\(IMX.._LRADC\)/\&mxs_lradc_of_config[\1]/ ?
> >
> > Check the register layout, it differs between MX23 and MX28, that's one
> > reason, since were we to access differently placed registers, we can do
> > it easily as in the SSP/I2C drivers.
> >
> > Moreover, there are some features on the MX28 that are not on the MX23
> > (like voltage treshold triggers and touchbuttons), with this setup, we
> > can easily check what we're running at at runtime and determine to
> > disallow these.
> >
> > From my point of view, using the number (IMX23_LRADC / IMX28_LRADC) is
> > much more convenient in the long run.
>
> I'm asking, because you don't use this number anywhere other than in
> mxs_lradc_probe()
> and there only to dereference the irq-names table. After that the
> structure and number
> are forgotten.
Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about
register layout, that's why I went down this road of abstraction.
> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curious.
I tried to put it down above ;-)
> Best Regards,
> Michał Mirosław
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
