| Message ID | 1418614273-2303-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Le 15/12/2014 04:31, Bo Shen a écrit : > From: Alexander Morozov <linux@meltdown.ru> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Morozov <linux@meltdown.ru> > [Add driver data to distinguish device type] > Signed-off-by: Bo Shen <voice.shen@atmel.com> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Add driver data for distinguish the device capability. > > sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark, Do you want us to re-send this patch or can you take it? On my side, I'm planning to take the 2 last ones of this series: is it okay for you? Thanks, bye. > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c > index 4d2d2b1..6e3f175 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c > +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c > @@ -2255,10 +2255,32 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id wm8904_i2c_id[] = { > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, wm8904_i2c_id); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > +static enum wm8904_type wm8904_data = WM8904; > +static enum wm8904_type wm8912_data = WM8912; > + > +static const struct of_device_id wm8904_of_match[] = { > + { > + .compatible = "wlf,wm8904", > + .data = &wm8904_data, > + }, { > + .compatible = "wlf,wm8912", > + .data = &wm8912_data, > + }, { > + .compatible = "wlf,wm8918", > + .data = &wm8904_data, > + }, { > + /* sentinel */ > + } > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, wm8904_of_match); > +#endif > + > static struct i2c_driver wm8904_i2c_driver = { > .driver = { > .name = "wm8904", > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(wm8904_of_match), > }, > .probe = wm8904_i2c_probe, > .remove = wm8904_i2c_remove, >
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:31:11AM +0800, Bo Shen wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > +static enum wm8904_type wm8904_data = WM8904; > +static enum wm8904_type wm8912_data = WM8912; > + > +static const struct of_device_id wm8904_of_match[] = { > + { > + .compatible = "wlf,wm8904", > + .data = &wm8904_data, Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and look at the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case...
Hi Mark, On 01/15/2015 07:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:31:11AM +0800, Bo Shen wrote: > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF >> +static enum wm8904_type wm8904_data = WM8904; >> +static enum wm8904_type wm8912_data = WM8912; >> + >> +static const struct of_device_id wm8904_of_match[] = { >> + { >> + .compatible = "wlf,wm8904", >> + .data = &wm8904_data, > > Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some > extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and look at > the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to get the data as I do in <drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c>. However, as I remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, that means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove all the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type correctly. So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. Thanks. Best Regards, Bo Shen
Le 16/01/2015 02:17, Bo Shen a écrit : > Hi Mark, > > On 01/15/2015 07:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:31:11AM +0800, Bo Shen wrote: >> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF >>> +static enum wm8904_type wm8904_data = WM8904; >>> +static enum wm8904_type wm8912_data = WM8912; >>> + >>> +static const struct of_device_id wm8904_of_match[] = { >>> + { >>> + .compatible = "wlf,wm8904", >>> + .data = &wm8904_data, >> >> Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some >> extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and look at >> the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... > > At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to > get the data as I do in <drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c>. However, as I > remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, that > means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove all > the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type > correctly. > > So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Bo Shen I don't understand what's keeping this patch from being applied. Voice, do you mind re-sending? On my side, I take the two patches that apply on AT91 DT (2/3 and 3/3). Bye,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:24:38PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 16/01/2015 02:17, Bo Shen a écrit : > >> Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some > >> extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and look at > >> the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... > > At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to > > get the data as I do in <drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c>. However, as I > > remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, that > > means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove all > > the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type > > correctly. > > So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. > I don't understand what's keeping this patch from being applied. Voice, > do you mind re-sending? I need to convince myself that the above actually works and is doing the right thing; the above explanation sounds like if it works it might be relying on a bug.
On 01/26/2015 05:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:24:38PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> Le 16/01/2015 02:17, Bo Shen a écrit : > >>>> Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some >>>> extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and look at >>>> the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... > >>> At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to >>> get the data as I do in <drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c>. However, as I >>> remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, that >>> means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove all >>> the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type >>> correctly. > >>> So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. > >> I don't understand what's keeping this patch from being applied. Voice, >> do you mind re-sending? > > I need to convince myself that the above actually works and is doing the > right thing; the above explanation sounds like if it works it might be > relying on a bug. I'd call it a undocumented feature. But I wouldn't rely on it being around for ever. In my opinion to be future proof the driver should explicitly handle the OF case in the probe function.
Hi Mark, Lars-Perter, On 01/27/2015 12:49 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 01/26/2015 05:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:24:38PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>> Le 16/01/2015 02:17, Bo Shen a écrit : >> >>>>> Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some >>>>> extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and >>>>> look at >>>>> the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... >> >>>> At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to >>>> get the data as I do in <drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c>. However, as I >>>> remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, >>>> that >>>> means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove >>>> all >>>> the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type >>>> correctly. >> >>>> So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. >> >>> I don't understand what's keeping this patch from being applied. Voice, >>> do you mind re-sending? >> >> I need to convince myself that the above actually works and is doing the >> right thing; the above explanation sounds like if it works it might be >> relying on a bug. > > I'd call it a undocumented feature. But I wouldn't rely on it being > around for ever. In my opinion to be future proof the driver should > explicitly handle the OF case in the probe function. > I will add this into probe function in next version. Thanks. Best Regards, Bo Shen
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c index 4d2d2b1..6e3f175 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c @@ -2255,10 +2255,32 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id wm8904_i2c_id[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, wm8904_i2c_id); +#ifdef CONFIG_OF +static enum wm8904_type wm8904_data = WM8904; +static enum wm8904_type wm8912_data = WM8912; + +static const struct of_device_id wm8904_of_match[] = { + { + .compatible = "wlf,wm8904", + .data = &wm8904_data, + }, { + .compatible = "wlf,wm8912", + .data = &wm8912_data, + }, { + .compatible = "wlf,wm8918", + .data = &wm8904_data, + }, { + /* sentinel */ + } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, wm8904_of_match); +#endif + static struct i2c_driver wm8904_i2c_driver = { .driver = { .name = "wm8904", .owner = THIS_MODULE, + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(wm8904_of_match), }, .probe = wm8904_i2c_probe, .remove = wm8904_i2c_remove,