Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:55:39PM -0500, Menon, Nishanth wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:13, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > [..] > >> > while at that, SR's IRQ is never freed on exit path, could fix it while > >> > you're already there ? > >> > >> This is not really related to this patch is it? IMHO IRQ handling is > > > > I didn't say to put it on the same patch ;-) I meant that while at that, > > you could add that simple fix before this patch ;-) > Not really that simple - it is just one part of the equation, my point > being - if we are cleaning up, we better cleanup completely on that > thread at least. fair enough :-) > >> broken badly. Current support is for SmartReflex class3 - which does > >> not use the IRQ, Class2 and Class1.5 use it, but the current code > >> requires major fixes which I dont intend to support in this series. > > > > And that's exactly what I mean. IMHO it's far better to fix the mess > > before adding more stuff, otherwise it just becomes an even bigger mess, > > even more difficult to fix in the long run. We've seen that with GPIO > > and sDMA drivers _at_least_ ;-( > > I tried pushing the cleanups in my series > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129933897910785&w=2 > > few of them did go through and I have since personally lost interest > and depending on my next free slot (not forthcoming for next few > months), I might want to retry it, but I guess there is more interest > in turning things into regulators than add new code. > > I am ok if folks want to drop this patch - like previously, things > tend to get forgotten.. I didn't really say that, but ok ;-) > >> >> @@ -998,10 +1020,75 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> >> return 0; > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> +static int omap_sr_suspend(struct device *dev) > >> >> +{ > >> >> + struct omap_sr_data *pdata; > >> >> + struct omap_sr *sr_info; > >> >> + > >> >> + pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev); > >> > > >> > I'm not sure you need to use platform data here... > >> see below > >> > > >> >> + if (!pdata) { > >> >> + dev_err(dev, "%s: platform data missing\n", __func__); > >> >> + return -EINVAL; > >> >> + } > >> >> + > >> >> + sr_info = _sr_lookup(pdata->voltdm); > >> > > >> > this field is held on struct omap_sr. Can't you: > >> > > >> > struct omap_sr *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> > > >> > ?? I see that a platform_set_drvdata() is missing from the driver, but > >> > maybe you should add that instead of accessing platform_data. > >> omap_sr_data is added in arch/arm/mach-omap2/sr_device.c > >> > >> With the current handling - it needs sr_data from which sr_info is > >> pulled out. in the current implementation, sr_data contains the voltdm > >> pointer from which sr_info is pulled out. > > > > but sr_info is allocated on probe() isn't it ? if you add > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, sr_info) on probe, you won't need sr_data to > > fetch sr_info, all you need is to use dev_get_drvdata(dev). Am I missing > > something ? > sr_info - I am not debating that this is not possible - I am just > explaining how it is being done now. I just dont have the bandwidth to > kill all evils in smartreflex driver. :( I see... ok then, I'll see if I find some time to play with that, should be kinda fun - not. Is this the only patch pending for that driver ? Should I base off of v3.0 and everything should be ok ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
