On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Yuvaraj,
>
> On 08/23/2013 08:15 PM, Yuvaraj Kumar C D wrote:
>> Currently platform specific private data initialisation is done by
>> dw_mci_exynos_priv_init and dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt.As we already have
>> separate platform specific device tree parser dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt,
>> move the dw_mci_exynos_priv_init code to dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt.
>> We can use the dw_mci_exynos_priv_init to do some actual platform
>> specific initialisation of SMU and etc.
>>
>> changes since V1: none
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>> index 9990f98..19c845b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>> @@ -72,22 +72,8 @@ static struct dw_mci_exynos_compatible {
>>
>> static int dw_mci_exynos_priv_init(struct dw_mci *host)
>> {
>> - struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv;
>> - int idx;
>> -
>> - priv = devm_kzalloc(host->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (!priv) {
>> - dev_err(host->dev, "mem alloc failed for private data\n");
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> - }
>> -
>> - for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_compat); idx++) {
>> - if (of_device_is_compatible(host->dev->of_node,
>> - exynos_compat[idx].compatible))
>> - priv->ctrl_type = exynos_compat[idx].ctrl_type;
>> - }
>> + struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
>>
>> - host->priv = priv;
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -177,12 +163,24 @@ static void dw_mci_exynos_set_ios(struct dw_mci *host, struct mmc_ios *ios)
>>
>> static int dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt(struct dw_mci *host)
>> {
>> - struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
>> + struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv;
>> struct device_node *np = host->dev->of_node;
>> u32 timing[2];
>> u32 div = 0;
>> + int idx;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(host->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!priv) {
>> + dev_err(host->dev, "mem alloc failed for private data\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_compat); idx++) {
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, exynos_compat[idx].compatible))
>> + priv->ctrl_type = exynos_compat[idx].ctrl_type;
>> + }
>> +
>> of_property_read_u32(np, "samsung,dw-mshc-ciu-div", &div);
>> priv->ciu_div = div;
>>
>> @@ -199,6 +197,7 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt(struct dw_mci *host)
>> return ret;
>>
>> priv->ddr_timing = SDMMC_CLKSEL_TIMING(timing[0], timing[1], div);
>> + host->priv = priv;
>
> I'm not sure whether my thinking is right or not.
> if host->pdata is present, then dw_mci_parse_dt() didn't called at dw_mci_probe.
Yes, you are right.
> then how host->priv set to priv?
Earlier host->priv set to priv in both non-DT and DT case.True, with
this patch it does it only in DT case.
Is there any platform/board which still uses dw_mmc and its platform
extension driver with non DT case?
I found a reference of non-DT case where host->pdata is present in
dw_mmc-pci.c driver but does not
use platform extension driver (exynos/socfpga).
>
> Best Regards,
> Jaehoon Chung
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>
--
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
