On Friday 16 September 2011 03:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:01PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
Modify the twl regulator driver to extract the regulator_init_data from
device tree when passed, instead of getting it through platform_data
structures (on non-DT builds)
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
index ee8747f..df1b95a 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
#include<linux/regulator/driver.h>
#include<linux/regulator/machine.h>
#include<linux/i2c/twl.h>
+#include<linux/of.h>
+#include<linux/of_regulator.h>
/*
@@ -1011,6 +1013,9 @@ static int __devinit twlreg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct regulation_constraints *c;
struct regulator_dev *rdev;
+ if (pdev->dev.of_node)
+ of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "ti,reg-id",&pdev->id);
+
Don't do this. As much as possible, don't reply on plaform_device->id
when using DT. Plus it is illegal to modify pdev->id after the device
is registered.
yeah, I did this hackery to just get around the drivers per-regulator
lookup table for which it uses the pdev->id as the index.
I will need to do this lookup based on compatible instead I guess.
for (i = 0, info = NULL; i< ARRAY_SIZE(twl_regs); i++) {
if (twl_regs[i].desc.id != pdev->id)
continue;
@@ -1020,7 +1025,11 @@ static int __devinit twlreg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!info)
return -ENODEV;
- initdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
+ if (pdev->dev.of_node)
+ initdata = of_get_regulator_init_data(pdev->dev.of_node);
+ else
+ initdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
+
if (!initdata)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -1101,14 +1110,27 @@ static int __devexit twlreg_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl_reg");
+#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
+static const struct of_device_id twl_of_match[] __devinitconst = {
+ { .compatible = "ti,twl-reg", },
This looks rather generic. Is this a specific chip? It should be.
We have multiple chips in the twl family like twl6030/twl6040/twl6025
but just one driver which handles all variants.
g.
+ {},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, twl_of_match);
+#else
+#define twl_of_match NULL
+#endif
+
static struct platform_driver twlreg_driver = {
.probe = twlreg_probe,
.remove = __devexit_p(twlreg_remove),
/* NOTE: short name, to work around driver model truncation of
* "twl_regulator.12" (and friends) to "twl_regulator.1".
*/
- .driver.name = "twl_reg",
- .driver.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "twl_reg",
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .of_match_table = twl_of_match,
+ },
};
static int __init twlreg_init(void)
--
1.7.1
--
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
