Vivek,
Nothing really serious below and things look good to me, but figured
I'd put a few nits in (sorry!).
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
> index 7b26e2d..09f06f8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/samsung-usbphy.txt
> @@ -9,3 +9,31 @@ Required properties:
> - compatible : should be "samsung,exynos4210-usbphy"
> - reg : base physical address of the phy registers and length of memory mapped
> region.
> +- #address-cells: should be 1.
> +- #size-cells: should be 0.
Doesn't match your example. Probably should be 1.
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c b/drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c
> index 5c5e1bb5..2260029 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/samsung-usbphy.c
> /*
> + * struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata - driver data for various SoC variants
> + * @cpu_type: machine identifier
> + * @devphy_en_mask: device phy enable mask for PHY CONTROL register
> + * @hostphy_en_mask: host phy enable mask for PHY CONTROL register
> + *
> + * having different mask for host and device type phy
> + * helps in setting independent masks in case of SoCs like
> + * S5PV210 in which PHY0 and PHY1 enable bits belong to same
> + * register placed at [0] and [1] respectively.
> + * Although for newer SoCs like exynos these bits belong to
> + * different registers altogether placed at [0].
> + */
> +struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata {
> + int cpu_type;
> + int devphy_en_mask;
This is really a "devphy_dis_mask", isn't it? AKA: setting to 1
disables the phy and setting to 0 enables the phy.
> + int hostphy_en_mask;
Code below always uses devphy and only ever inits devphy. I assume
future code will init / use hostphy? Worth moving the hostphy part in
that patch?
> struct samsung_usbphy {
> struct usb_phy phy;
> @@ -81,12 +104,66 @@ struct samsung_usbphy {
> struct device *dev;
> struct clk *clk;
> void __iomem *regs;
> + void __iomem *phyctrl_pmureg;
> int ref_clk_freq;
> - int cpu_type;
> + struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata *drv_data;
nit: const
> +static int samsung_usbphy_parse_dt_param(struct samsung_usbphy *sphy)
> +{
> + struct device_node *usbphy_pmu;
> + u32 reg[2];
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!sphy->dev->of_node) {
> + dev_err(sphy->dev, "Can't get usb-phy node\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + usbphy_pmu = of_get_child_by_name(sphy->dev->of_node, "usbphy-pmu");
> + if (!usbphy_pmu)
> + dev_warn(sphy->dev, "Can't get usb-phy pmu control node\n");
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(usbphy_pmu, "reg", reg, 2);
nit: use ARRAY_SIZE(reg)
> + if (!ret)
> + sphy->phyctrl_pmureg = ioremap(reg[0], reg[1]);
> +
> + of_node_put(usbphy_pmu);
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sphy->phyctrl_pmureg)) {
> + dev_err(sphy->dev, "Can't get usb-phy pmu control register\n");
I don't think there's any cases where it matters (you'll error out of
the driver if you return an error here), but seems like it might be
nice to set sphy->phyctrl_pmureg to NULL here since other places test
this member against NULL only.
> +static inline struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata
> +*samsung_usbphy_get_driver_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> const struct of_device_id *match;
> match = of_match_node(samsung_usbphy_dt_match,
> pdev->dev.of_node);
> - return (int) match->data;
> + return (struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata *) match->data;
nit: no need for a cast here, I believe.
> }
>
> - return platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data;
> + return ((struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata *)
> + platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data);
nit: no need for a cast here, I believe.
> +static struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata usbphy_s3c64xx = {
> + .cpu_type = TYPE_S3C64XX,
> + .devphy_en_mask = S3C64XX_USBPHY_ENABLE,
> +};
> +
> +static struct samsung_usbphy_drvdata usbphy_exynos4 = {
> + .cpu_type = TYPE_EXYNOS4210,
> + .devphy_en_mask = EXYNOS_USBPHY_ENABLE,
> +};
> +
nit: static const for these structs?
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
