From: "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
"Hilman, Kevin" <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] OMAP: omap_device: Add omap_device_[alloc|delete] for DT integration
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:07:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E775ABE.8020905@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E773F91.3030704@ti.com>
On 9/19/2011 3:11 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> On 9/17/2011 6:05 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 04:43:18PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote:
[...]
>>> - pr_debug("omap_device: %s: building with %d hwmods\n", pdev_name,
>>> - oh_cnt);
>>> + /* Set the dev_name early to allow dev_xxx in omap_device_alloc */
>>> + if (pdev->id != -1)
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s.%d", pdev->name, pdev->id);
>>> + else
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s", pdev->name);
>>
>> This is duplicated from the core platform_device code. What is the
>> reasoning for doing it again here?
>
> Well, it is written in the comment... But this is maybe not that obvious
> :-)
> That part is only needed for the legacy path that will create a
> omap_device before having created the device, and thus at that time the
> dev_xxx will not give the device name. This is not a big deal, but that
> was painful for the debug.
>
> That being said, by writing that, I'm now realizing that this is due to
> the way the legacy code was working, because I didn't try to change the
> sequence.
> But maybe, I can easily avoid that by changing the original sequence.
> In fact If I create the omap_device after the omap_device_register, the
> platform_device will already have the correct name...
>
> That should work, I'll give it a try.
Mmm, that's funny because it still does require to copy some part of the
platform_device_add to make that work.
This is now the resource name that are missing in that case :-(
So I will have to add at least that part to make that work:
if (r->name == NULL)
r->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);
And the real function is doing s little bit more:
p = r->parent;
if (!p) {
if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_MEM)
p = &iomem_resource;
else if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_IO)
p = &ioport_resource;
}
if (p && insert_resource(p, r)) {
printk(KERN_ERR
"%s: failed to claim resource %d\n",
dev_name(&pdev->dev), i);
ret = -EBUSY;
goto failed;
}
It seems that in both cases, some part of the platform core code has to
be copied to make that work properly.
Except if someone has a better idea, I'd rather stick to the original
dev_set_name hack. Considering that this code should be removed at some
point anyway.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Benoit
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] OMAP: omap_device: Add omap_device_[alloc|delete] for DT integration
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:07:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E775ABE.8020905@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E773F91.3030704@ti.com>
On 9/19/2011 3:11 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> On 9/17/2011 6:05 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 04:43:18PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote:
[...]
>>> - pr_debug("omap_device: %s: building with %d hwmods\n", pdev_name,
>>> - oh_cnt);
>>> + /* Set the dev_name early to allow dev_xxx in omap_device_alloc */
>>> + if (pdev->id != -1)
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s.%d", pdev->name, pdev->id);
>>> + else
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s", pdev->name);
>>
>> This is duplicated from the core platform_device code. What is the
>> reasoning for doing it again here?
>
> Well, it is written in the comment... But this is maybe not that obvious
> :-)
> That part is only needed for the legacy path that will create a
> omap_device before having created the device, and thus at that time the
> dev_xxx will not give the device name. This is not a big deal, but that
> was painful for the debug.
>
> That being said, by writing that, I'm now realizing that this is due to
> the way the legacy code was working, because I didn't try to change the
> sequence.
> But maybe, I can easily avoid that by changing the original sequence.
> In fact If I create the omap_device after the omap_device_register, the
> platform_device will already have the correct name...
>
> That should work, I'll give it a try.
Mmm, that's funny because it still does require to copy some part of the
platform_device_add to make that work.
This is now the resource name that are missing in that case :-(
So I will have to add at least that part to make that work:
if (r->name == NULL)
r->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);
And the real function is doing s little bit more:
p = r->parent;
if (!p) {
if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_MEM)
p = &iomem_resource;
else if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_IO)
p = &ioport_resource;
}
if (p && insert_resource(p, r)) {
printk(KERN_ERR
"%s: failed to claim resource %d\n",
dev_name(&pdev->dev), i);
ret = -EBUSY;
goto failed;
}
It seems that in both cases, some part of the platform core code has to
be copied to make that work properly.
Except if someone has a better idea, I'd rather stick to the original
dev_set_name hack. Considering that this code should be removed at some
point anyway.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Benoit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-19 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-16 14:43 [PATCH v2 0/2] OMAP: omap_device: Add a method to build an omap_device from a DT node Benoit Cousson
2011-09-16 14:43 ` Benoit Cousson
2011-09-16 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] OMAP: omap_device: Add omap_device_[alloc|delete] for DT integration Benoit Cousson
2011-09-16 14:43 ` Benoit Cousson
2011-09-17 16:05 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-17 16:05 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-17 16:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-17 16:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-17 16:46 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-17 16:46 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-19 13:11 ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-09-19 13:11 ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-09-19 15:07 ` Cousson, Benoit [this message]
2011-09-19 15:07 ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-09-16 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] OMAP: omap_device: Add a method to build an omap_device from a DT node Benoit Cousson
2011-09-16 14:43 ` Benoit Cousson
2011-09-17 16:13 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-17 16:13 ` Grant Likely
2011-09-19 13:22 ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-09-19 13:22 ` Cousson, Benoit
2011-09-21 21:17 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-09-21 21:17 ` Kevin Hilman
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=4E775ABE.8020905@ti.com \
--to=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/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.