From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@codeaurora.org>
To: dilinger@queued.net, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Ian Lartey <ian@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Dimitris Papastamos <dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com>,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: platform data and mfd design question
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:51:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D5AF554.2030208@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Currently all the mfd devices declare their struct mfd_cell
sub_devices[] array within the core driver. The platform data to them is
either passed in as a part of the core driver's platform data.
Msm on the other hand declares the struct mfd_cell subdevice[] array in
the board file and passes this on to the core driver via platfom data.
This code can be found here (sorry for the long url - it is convinient
to click on it),
https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/msm.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-msm/board-msm8x60.c;h=ed9e9a7674b5ee443f25af828a0044ff99fac483;hb=refs/heads/android-msm-2.6.35
look for static struct mfd_cell pm8058_subdevs[]
This gives one the convenience of changing the mfd_cells and their
platform data in the board file itself. There are boards where the
platform data of some cells changes and in some cases we dont even add a
particular cell.
This design makes the core driver very light weight. All it does is
calls mfd_add_devices on the cell array passed from its platform data.
Will this be acceptable in mainline OR do we need to change to follow
how others in drivers/mfd do it which is to define the mfd_cell array in
the core file itself and manipulate their platform data before doing
mfd_add_devices.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm
Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: adharmap@codeaurora.org (Abhijeet Dharmapurikar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: platform data and mfd design question
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:51:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D5AF554.2030208@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Currently all the mfd devices declare their struct mfd_cell
sub_devices[] array within the core driver. The platform data to them is
either passed in as a part of the core driver's platform data.
Msm on the other hand declares the struct mfd_cell subdevice[] array in
the board file and passes this on to the core driver via platfom data.
This code can be found here (sorry for the long url - it is convinient
to click on it),
https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/msm.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-msm/board-msm8x60.c;h=ed9e9a7674b5ee443f25af828a0044ff99fac483;hb=refs/heads/android-msm-2.6.35
look for static struct mfd_cell pm8058_subdevs[]
This gives one the convenience of changing the mfd_cells and their
platform data in the board file itself. There are boards where the
platform data of some cells changes and in some cases we dont even add a
particular cell.
This design makes the core driver very light weight. All it does is
calls mfd_add_devices on the cell array passed from its platform data.
Will this be acceptable in mainline OR do we need to change to follow
how others in drivers/mfd do it which is to define the mfd_cell array in
the core file itself and manipulate their platform data before doing
mfd_add_devices.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm
Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next reply other threads:[~2011-02-15 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-15 21:51 Abhijeet Dharmapurikar [this message]
2011-02-15 21:51 ` platform data and mfd design question Abhijeet Dharmapurikar
2011-02-16 2:19 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-16 2:19 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-16 8:48 ` Linus Walleij
2011-02-16 8:48 ` Linus Walleij
2011-02-16 16:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-16 16:53 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D5AF554.2030208@codeaurora.org \
--to=adharmap@codeaurora.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dilinger@queued.net \
--cc=dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=ian@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@stericsson.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael.hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.