On Tuesday 10 July 2012 11:58 AM, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2012 05:21 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
Add device tree support for twl6030 usb driver.
Update the Documentation with device tree binding information.
Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I<kishon@xxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt | 18 ++++++++
drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c | 45
++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f293271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+USB COMPARATOR OF TWL CHIPS
+
+TWL6030 USB COMPARATOR
+ - compatible : Should be "ti,twl6030-usb"
+ - interrupts : Two interrupt numbers to the cpu should be specified.
First
+ interrupt number is the otg interrupt number that raises ID interrupts
when
+ the controller has to act as host and the second interrupt number is
the
+ usb interrupt number that raises VBUS interrupts when the controller
has to
+ act as device
+ - regulator :<supply-name> can be "vusb" or "ldousb"
+ -<supply-name>-supply : phandle to the regulator device tree node
+
+twl6030-usb {
+ compatible = "ti,twl6030-usb";
+ interrupts =< 4 10>;
+ regulator = "vusb";
+ vusb-supply =<&vusb>;
This doesn't seem right. Why do you ned a 'regulator' string along
with the phandle?
The original code was something like
if (twl->features& TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
regulator_name = "ldousb";
else
regulator_name = "vusb";
I wasn't sure how to handle this *TWL6025_SUBCLASS* stuff.
+};
diff --git a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
index 6a361d2..20b7abe 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ struct twl6030_usb {
u8 asleep;
bool irq_enabled;
bool vbus_enable;
- unsigned long features;
+ const char *regulator;
};
#define comparator_to_twl(x) container_of((x), struct twl6030_usb,
comparator)
@@ -153,13 +153,6 @@ static int twl6030_start_srp(struct phy_companion
*comparator)
static int twl6030_usb_ldo_init(struct twl6030_usb *twl)
{
- char *regulator_name;
-
- if (twl->features& TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
- regulator_name = "ldousb";
- else
- regulator_name = "vusb";
-
/* Set to OTG_REV 1.3 and turn on the ID_WAKEUP_COMP */
twl6030_writeb(twl, TWL6030_MODULE_ID0 , 0x1, TWL6030_BACKUP_REG);
@@ -169,7 +162,7 @@ static int twl6030_usb_ldo_init(struct twl6030_usb
*twl)
/* Program MISC2 register and set bit VUSB_IN_VBAT */
twl6030_writeb(twl, TWL6030_MODULE_ID0 , 0x10, TWL6030_MISC2);
- twl->usb3v3 = regulator_get(twl->dev, regulator_name);
+ twl->usb3v3 = regulator_get(twl->dev, twl->regulator);
if (IS_ERR(twl->usb3v3))
return -ENODEV;
@@ -324,9 +317,9 @@ static int __devinit twl6030_usb_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
{
struct twl6030_usb *twl;
int status, err;
- struct twl4030_usb_data *pdata;
- struct device *dev =&pdev->dev;
- pdata = dev->platform_data;
+ struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
+ struct device *dev =&pdev->dev;
+ struct twl4030_usb_data *pdata = dev->platform_data;
twl = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof *twl, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!twl)
@@ -335,13 +328,28 @@ static int __devinit twl6030_usb_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
twl->dev =&pdev->dev;
twl->irq1 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
twl->irq2 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
- twl->features = pdata->features;
twl->linkstat = OMAP_MUSB_UNKNOWN;
twl->comparator.set_vbus = twl6030_set_vbus;
twl->comparator.start_srp = twl6030_start_srp;
omap_usb2_set_comparator(&twl->comparator);
+ if (np) {
+ err = of_property_read_string(np,
"regulator",&twl->regulator);
+ if (err< 0) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to get regulator\n");
+ return err;
+ }
Isn't there a better way for the driver to know which supply to use instead
of DT passing the supply name?
The problem I see is this same driver is used for twl6030 and twl6025
and the regulator used is different for these two chips (And I think
hmm, so based on what chip is used on a board, shouldn't the board dts
file just map the right regulator with a supply name?
This doesn't look like something the driver should be bothered about.
twl6025 will also use the same dt file as twl6030 as I don't see a
different file for 6025).
Thanks
Kishon
--
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
