On 01/21/2013 10:32 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 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.
You'll probably be better of by putting these differences into the
mxs_lradc_of_config struct as well, instead of adding switch statements here
and there throughout the code.
- Lars
--
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
