On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29:33AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> As mach/hardware.h is deleted, we need to use platform_device_id to
> differentiate SoCs. Besides, one cpu_is_mx35 is useless as it has
> already used pdata to differentiate runtime
>
> Meanwhile we update the platform code accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/devices-common.h | 1 +
> arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-fsl-usb2-udc.c | 15 ++++---
> drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_mxc_udc.c | 24 +++++-------
> drivers/usb/gadget/fsl_udc_core.c | 42 +++++++++++++--------
> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
Since we are splitting the original patch anyway, it's a bit strange
to me that you are mixing arch/arm/mach-imx and drivers/usb/gadget
in this patch. I'm fine with it, since I assume all the patches to
go via USB tree anyway.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/devices-common.h b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/devices-common.h
> index 6277baf..9bd5777 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/devices-common.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/devices-common.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct platform_device *__init imx_add_flexcan(
>
> #include <linux/fsl_devices.h>
> struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data {
> + const char *devid;
> resource_size_t iobase;
> resource_size_t irq;
> };
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-fsl-usb2-udc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-fsl-usb2-udc.c
> index 37e4439..fb527c7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-fsl-usb2-udc.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/devices/platform-fsl-usb2-udc.c
> @@ -11,35 +11,36 @@
> #include "../hardware.h"
> #include "devices-common.h"
>
> -#define imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(soc) \
> +#define imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(soc, _devid) \
> { \
> + .devid = _devid, \
> .iobase = soc ## _USB_OTG_BASE_ADDR, \
> .irq = soc ## _INT_USB_OTG, \
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX25
> const struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data imx25_fsl_usb2_udc_data __initconst =
> - imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX25);
> + imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX25, "imx-udc-mx25");
> #endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX25 */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX27
> const struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data imx27_fsl_usb2_udc_data __initconst =
> - imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX27);
> + imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX27, "imx-udc-mx27");
> #endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX27 */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX31
> const struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data imx31_fsl_usb2_udc_data __initconst =
> - imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX31);
> + imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX31, "imx-udc-mx31");
> #endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX31 */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX35
> const struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data imx35_fsl_usb2_udc_data __initconst =
> - imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX35);
> + imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX35, "imx-udc-mx35");
> #endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX35 */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX51
> const struct imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data imx51_fsl_usb2_udc_data __initconst =
> - imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX51);
> + imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX51, "imx-udc-mx51");
> #endif
>
> struct platform_device *__init imx_add_fsl_usb2_udc(
> @@ -57,7 +58,7 @@ struct platform_device *__init imx_add_fsl_usb2_udc(
> .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> },
> };
> - return imx_add_platform_device_dmamask("fsl-usb2-udc", -1,
> + return imx_add_platform_device_dmamask(data->devid, -1,
> res, ARRAY_SIZE(res),
> pdata, sizeof(*pdata), DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> }
<snip>
> +static const struct platform_device_id fsl_udc_devtype[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "imx-udc-mx25",
> + }, {
> + .name = "imx-udc-mx27",
> + }, {
> + .name = "imx-udc-mx31",
> + }, {
> + .name = "imx-udc-mx35",
> + }, {
> + .name = "imx-udc-mx51",
> + }
> +};
>From what I understand balbi's comment, he dislikes this full list of
device id. Instead, he prefers to something like below.
static const struct platform_device_id fsl_udc_devtype[] = {
{
.name = "imx-udc-mx27",
}, {
.name = "imx-udc-mx51",
}
};
It basically tells that we are handling two type of devices here, one
is imx-udc-mx27 type and the other is imx-udc-mx51 type, with mx25/31/35
completely compatible with mx27 type. We choose mx27 instead of mx25
to define the type because mx27 Si came out earlier than mx25. That
said, we generally choose the earlies SoC name to define a particular
version of IP block, since hardware version is mostly unavailable or
unreliable.
But that also means in platform code which create the platform_device,
you will need to use name "imx-udc-mx27" for even mx25/31/35.
imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX25, "imx-udc-mx27");
imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX31, "imx-udc-mx27");
imx_fsl_usb2_udc_data_entry_single(MX35, "imx-udc-mx27");
Considering this is a piece of code we will not use for any new
hardware, I'm fine with either way.
So, balbi, it's all your call to accept the series as it is or ask for
another iteration.
Shawn
--
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
