Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:29:10PM -0500, Kalliguddi, Hema wrote:
>>+#define MAX_OMAP_MUSB_HWMOD_NAME_LEN 16
>
> this isn't used anywhere.
>
>>@@ -75,31 +62,30 @@ static struct musb_hdrc_platform_data mu
>>
>> static u64 musb_dmamask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>>
>>-static struct platform_device musb_device = {
>>- .name = "musb_hdrc",
>>- .id = -1,
>>- .dev = {
>>- .dma_mask = &musb_dmamask,
>>- .coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
>>- .platform_data = &musb_plat,
>>+static struct omap_device_pm_latency omap_musb_latency[] = {
>>+ {
>>+ .deactivate_func = omap_device_idle_hwmods,
>>+ .activate_func = omap_device_enable_hwmods,
>>+ .flags = OMAP_DEVICE_LATENCY_AUTO_ADJUST,
>> },
>>- .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(musb_resources),
>>- .resource = musb_resources,
>> };
>>
>> void __init usb_musb_init(struct omap_musb_board_data *board_data)
>> {
>>- if (cpu_is_omap243x()) {
>>- musb_resources[0].start = OMAP243X_HS_BASE;
>>- } else if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) {
>>- musb_resources[0].start = OMAP34XX_HSUSB_OTG_BASE;
>>- } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
>>- musb_resources[0].start = OMAP44XX_HSUSB_OTG_BASE;
>>- musb_resources[1].start = OMAP44XX_IRQ_HS_USB_MC_N;
>>- musb_resources[2].start = OMAP44XX_IRQ_HS_USB_DMA_N;
>>+ struct omap_hwmod *oh;
>>+ struct omap_device *od;
>>+ struct platform_device *pdev;
>>+ struct device *dev;
>>+ int bus_id = -1;
>>+ const char *oh_name = "usb_otg_hs";
>>+ struct musb_hdrc_platform_data *pdata;
>>+
>>+ oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(oh_name);
>>+
>>+ if (!oh) {
>>+ pr_err("Could not look up %s\n", oh_name);
>>+ return;
>> }
>
> Paul, Kevin, to me it looks like a duplication that all devices will
> have to:
>
> oh = omap_hwmod_lookup("my_hwmod_name");
> omap_device_build("my_device_name", bus_id, oh, pdata, sizeof(*pdata));
>
> could the omap_hwmod_lookup() part be moved to omap_device_build ? Or
> maybe create a omap_hwmod_lookup_and_build(oh_name, dev_name, bus_id,
> pdata, sizeof(*pdata)) ??
I don't think that this is too much extra work.
Also, many drivers are not doing a single hwmod lookup, they are using
an iterator to iterate over a bunch of hwmods in a given class (c.f.
omap_hwmod_for_each_by_class)
So, IMO, keeping the lookup and build separate is better.
>>@@ -110,8 +96,23 @@ void __init usb_musb_init(struct omap_mu
>> musb_plat.mode = board_data->mode;
>> musb_plat.extvbus = board_data->extvbus;
>>
>>- if (platform_device_register(&musb_device) < 0)
>>- printk(KERN_ERR "Unable to register HS-USB (MUSB) device\n");
>>+ pdata = &musb_plat;
>>+
>>+ od = omap_device_build(name, bus_id, oh, pdata,
>>+ sizeof(struct musb_hdrc_platform_data),
>
> use sizeof(*pdata), if we change the name of that structure (very
> unlikely, but still) it'll avoid unwanted compile breakage.
>
>>+ pdev = &od->pdev;
>>+ dev = &pdev->dev;
>>+ get_device(dev);
>>+ dev->dma_mask = &musb_dmamask;
>>+ dev->coherent_dma_mask = musb_dmamask;
>>+ put_device(dev);
>
> I think this is also a duplication, it's gonna on all hwmod device
> registration, no ?
Only for devices setting DMA masks.
This is no more duplication than we have today for all platform_devices.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
