On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 09:54 +0530, Janorkar, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Valkeinen, Tomi
> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:40 PM
> > To: Janorkar, Mayuresh
> > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; K, Mythri P
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 4/4] OMAP: DSS: Add picodlp panel driver
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 20:25 +0530, Janorkar, Mayuresh wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Valkeinen, Tomi
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:58 PM
> > > > To: Janorkar, Mayuresh
> > > > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; K, Mythri P
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] OMAP: DSS: Add picodlp panel driver
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 18:55 +0530, Mayuresh Janorkar wrote:
> > > > > picodlp panel driver is required for driving DLP dpp2600.
> > > > > It consists of a dss driver and an i2c_client.
> > > > >
> > > > > i2c_client is required for sending commands to dpp (DLP Pico
> > Projector).
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on original design from Mythri P K <mythripk@xxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > The power-up sequence consists of:
> > > > > Setting PWRGOOD to a logic low state. Once power is stable and thus
> > the
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 622 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/video/omap2/displays/panel-picodlp.c
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <plat/display.h>
> > > > > +#include <plat/panel-picodlp.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include "panel-picodlp.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define DRIVER_NAME "picodlp_i2c_driver"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define MAX_TRIAL_VALUE 100
> > > >
> > > > I'll repeat my comment from previous review round:
> > > >
> > > > The name of this define is not descriptive and you use this define in
> > > > two places which have nothing to do with each other. I think it's
> > better
> > > > just to use the value where it's needed.
> > >
> > > I think it looks more readable if we have a MACRO.
> > > But as they are used at only couple of places I would remove these
> > MACROs.
> >
> > Well, the problem with this macro is that it's very unclear. What does
> > max trial value mean? It doesn't define anything sensible, just a number
> > which doesn't mean anything without the code context.
> >
> > If it was MAX_TRIAL_TIME_MS, telling the maximum time in milliseconds
> > that the code would wait, then it would be sensible.
> >
> > Another problem is that you used the same macro in two different places,
> > which have nothing to do with each other. The other place requires a
> > wait of 500ms, if I recall right, and is related to the power up. The
> > other one is related to waiting for some DMA transfer inside pico to
> > finish, and this time is in microseconds or possibly few milliseconds if
> > I understood right.
> >
> > It's not good to use the same define in such different places,
> > especially as it only defines a max loop number, so it depends on the
> > msleeps in the code.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > +struct picodlp_data {
> > > > > + struct mutex lock;
> > >
> > >
> > > > > +static int picodlp_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct picodlp_i2c_data *picodlp_i2c_data =
> > > > > + i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + kfree(picodlp_i2c_data);
> > > > > + i2c_unregister_device(client);
> > > >
> > > > You add the i2c device in the dss probe function, but unregister it in
> > > > i2c remove function. That's probably not right. These things should
> > > > usually be symmetric, and the unregister should be at the dss remove
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > Isnt it good to have a remove function removing i2c_client?
> >
> > Well, when is picodlp_i2c_remove() called? Isn't it called when the i2c
> > client is being removed, i.e. when somebody has called
> > i2c_unregister_device()?
>
> The matching API for i2c_add_device is i2c_del_device.
These are _driver_ functions not device.
> And i2c_unregister_device is a matching API for i2c_new_device.
>
> i2c_del_device (a call present in picodlp_exit) would call i2c_remove
> and then i2c_remove has a call to i2c_unregister_device which would
> unregister the i2c_device.
>
> So panel_remove should also have a call to i2c_unregister_device.
> This would solve the problem.
I believe panel_remove should be the only place to have
i2c_unregister_device. It is, as you said, counterpart of
i2c_new_device, and that is called from panel_probe.
Tomi
--
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
