On 01/21/2013 09:49 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Lars-Peter Clausen, > >> 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. > > Certainly. All that is needed is in place now. > All look sane to me and Marek has answered all the questions as far as I can see. I'll take these once I get a response from Shawn (unless someone convinces me otherwise ;) -- 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