Hi,
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:04:51 +0530, "Madhusudhan Chikkature"
<madhu.cr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:33:41 +0530 (IST), x0070977@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Index: linux-omap-2.6/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-omap-2.6.orig/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c 2008-06-20
>>> 15:39:56.000000000 +0530
>>> +++ linux-omap-2.6/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c 2008-06-20
>>> 15:42:05.000000000
>>> +0530
>>> @@ -358,6 +358,22 @@
>>> static inline void omap_hdq_init(void) {}
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TWL4030_BCI_BATTERY
>>> +static struct platform_device omap_bci_battery_device = {
>>> + .name = "twl4030-bci-battery",
>>> + .id = 1,
>>> + .num_resources = 0,
>>> + .resource = NULL,
>>
>> if you pass the struct resources you can use __raw_{read,write} which
>> would simplify a lot for you, but if you really don't want it, you
>> don't have to initialize it to NULL. Just because it's static, it's
>> enough for it to get NULLed.
> The battery driver uses twl4030_i2c_read_u8 and twl4030_i2c_write_u8 as
> low level interface(I2C) with
> standard twl4030.h defines. So no point of _raw(read,write) and BASE
> address getting initialized through resource structure. Right?.
> I agree with your second point of no need to explicitely setting it to
> NULL though.
The idea was to actually get rid of the i2c transfers and use
__raw_read/write
instead, but I suppose it's ok to use i2c transfers
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static inline void omap_bci_battery_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + (void) platform_device_register(&omap_bci_battery_device);
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline void omap_bci_battery_init(void) {}
>>> +#endif
>>> +
don't remember if I said on last mail, but this ifdef should be in
a header file. Maybe include/linux/i2c/twl4030.h
>> How about creating a special battery.c for this just like usb-musb.c,
>> usb-ehci.c
>> and hsmmc.c, so it's easier to reuse it and add such support only for
>> boards that
>> has twl4030.
>>
>> It would be useful for omap multiboot, I suppose.
> I had put these under devices.c as there is not much board level
> configurations for BCI unlike hsmmc.
> I guess I can add a simple board file for battery that way it can used
> based on TWL4030 if it is a good idea.
I would like to hear from Tony and the others what do they think?
would it be worthy adding an extra file for bci ??
Tony, comments?
>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK_DEFERRABLE()???
> Do you mean INIT_DELAYED_WORK_DEFERRABLE() is a better choice here??
Yes, as it could be deferred on suspend/resume. I think INIT_DELAYED_WORK
also blocks dynamic pm ?!?
Maybe Jouni could clarify this one better. Jouni, any comments?
--
Best Regards,
Felipe Balbi
http://felipebalbi.com
me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
