On 02/09/2021 09:47, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Grygorii,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 1 Sep 2021
22:26:25 +0300:
On 25/08/2021 18:25, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Introduce a new compatible that has another set of driver data,
targeting am437x SoCs with a magnetic reader instead of the
touchscreen and a more featureful set of registers.
Co-developed-by: Jason Reeder <jreeder@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jason Reeder <jreeder@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
include/linux/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.h | 9 +++++-
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.c b/drivers/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.c
index 1a30610dc65f..f4f6b9db4d2a 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.c
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ static int ti_tscadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
const __be32 *cur;
struct clk *clk;
u32 val;
- bool use_tsc = false;
+ bool use_tsc = false, use_mag = false;
int tscmag_wires = 0, adc_channels = 0, readouts = 0, cell_idx = 0;
- int total_channels, err;
+ int mag_tracks = 0, total_channels, err;
> /* Allocate memory for device */
tscadc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tscadc), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -146,6 +146,12 @@ static int ti_tscadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,coordiante-readouts", &readouts);
if (tscmag_wires)
use_tsc = true;
+ } else {
+ node = of_get_child_by_name(pdev->dev.of_node, "mag");
+ of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,tracks", &mag_tracks);
"ti,tracks" seems undocumented?
Well that's true and almost on purpose, I am not focusing on the
magnetic reader feature, it is not supported, I don't have one, I don't
plan to add support for it. But in the driver I need to know how many
"tracks" are unavailable for the ADC in order to implement the entire
logic (this block comes from TI and the naming from Jason Reeder).
I am not comfortable writing a binding file for a device that I won't
use, it's the best way to miss something and have stable broken
bindings in the future. So I assumed it was not a big deal to have this
property in the code, which may be updated/removed/enhanced later if
needed without having to mess with the code too much. What do you think?
Sry, it's not ok.
You need to (a) add binding or (b) w/a it in some way -
like drop it and use const value instead, for example.
--
Best regards,
grygorii
