From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM i.MX23/28: Add framebuffer device support
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:46:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110218084625.GF24426@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110218061440.GA18085@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:14:41PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:56:39AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@freescale.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c | 2 +-
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx28.c | 1 +
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx23.h | 4 ++
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx28.h | 4 ++
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Kconfig | 4 ++
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Makefile | 1 +
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/platform-mxsfb.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 7 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/platform-mxsfb.c
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c
> > index ca72a05..bfc7f27 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c
> > @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "hclk", hbus_clk)
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "usb", usb_clk)
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "audio", audio_clk)
> > - _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "pwm", pwm_clk)
> Introducing the warning below ...
>
> arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx23.c:430: warning: ?pwm_clk? defined but not used
Right, it was not intended to remove the pwm here. Will fix.
>
> > + _REGISTER_CLOCK("imx23-fb", NULL, lcdif_clk)
> > };
> >
> > static int clk_misc_init(void)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx28.c b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx28.c
> > index fd1c4c5..6a7ebcb 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx28.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/clock-mx28.c
> > @@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "pwm", pwm_clk)
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "lradc", lradc_clk)
> > _REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "spdif", spdif_clk)
> > + _REGISTER_CLOCK("imx28-fb", NULL, lcdif_clk)
> > };
> >
> > static int clk_misc_init(void)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx23.h b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx23.h
> > index 1256788..b9745a2 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx23.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx23.h
> > @@ -10,7 +10,11 @@
> > */
> > #include <mach/mx23.h>
> > #include <mach/devices-common.h>
> > +#include <mach/fb.h>
> >
> Why do we have mxsfb platform device code breaking the consistency
> that we are maintaining well so far?
The rule is that we include header files where we need them.
devices-common.h is not touched in this patch and it does not need
mach/fb.h, hence it is not include there.
>
> Generally, we have this header included in devices-common.h
>
> > extern const struct amba_device mx23_duart_device __initconst;
> > #define mx23_add_duart() \
> > mxs_add_duart(&mx23_duart_device)
> > +
> > +struct platform_device *__init mx23_add_mxsfb(
> > + const struct mxsfb_platform_data *pdata);
>
> Generally, this goes to devices-common.h
No, devices-common.h only declares the mxs_* functions. There is no
mxs_add_mxsfb in this patch which indeed would go to devices-common.h
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx28.h b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx28.h
> > index 33773a6..c902dc7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx28.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices-mx28.h
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > */
> > #include <mach/mx28.h>
> > #include <mach/devices-common.h>
> > +#include <mach/fb.h>
> >
> > extern const struct amba_device mx28_duart_device __initconst;
> > #define mx28_add_duart() \
> > @@ -18,3 +19,6 @@ extern const struct amba_device mx28_duart_device __initconst;
> > extern const struct mxs_fec_data mx28_fec_data[] __initconst;
> > #define mx28_add_fec(id, pdata) \
> > mxs_add_fec(&mx28_fec_data[id], pdata)
> > +
> > +struct platform_device *__init mx28_add_mxsfb(
> > + const struct mxsfb_platform_data *pdata);
>
> ditto
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Kconfig
> > index cf7dc1a..1538cb9 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Kconfig
> > @@ -4,3 +4,7 @@ config MXS_HAVE_AMBA_DUART
> >
> > config MXS_HAVE_PLATFORM_FEC
> > bool
> > +
> > +config MXS_HAVE_PLATFORM_MXSFB
> > + bool
> > +
>
> I understand that "mxsfb" was picked up for the device name to
> reflect the driver name. But since this is the device under mach- mxs
> folder, can we simply call it "fb" just like the way you name fb.h?
>
> In this way, we have all mxs platform device naming schema aligned,
> auart, duart, dma, fb, fec, flexcan, mmc ...
I see it the other way round. mach/fb.h is too generic, I would prefer
mach/mxsfb.h to be able to add support for a different framebuffer
later. So I better change fb.h to mxsfb.h.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Makefile
> > index d0a09f6..0cf8b48 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/Makefile
> > @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
> > obj-$(CONFIG_MXS_HAVE_AMBA_DUART) += amba-duart.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_MXS_HAVE_PLATFORM_FEC) += platform-fec.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_MXS_HAVE_PLATFORM_MXSFB) += platform-mxsfb.o
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/platform-mxsfb.c b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/platform-mxsfb.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..632bbdc
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/devices/platform-mxsfb.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2011 Pengutronix, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> > + * the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the
> > + * Free Software Foundation.
> > + */
> > +#include <asm/sizes.h>
> > +#include <mach/mx23.h>
> > +#include <mach/mx28.h>
> > +#include <mach/devices-common.h>
> > +#include <mach/fb.h>
>
> Generally, this goes to devices-common.h
>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX23
> > +struct platform_device *__init mx23_add_mxsfb(
> > + const struct mxsfb_platform_data *pdata)
> > +{
> > + struct resource res[] = {
> > + {
> > + .start = MX23_LCDIF_BASE_ADDR,
> > + .end = MX23_LCDIF_BASE_ADDR + SZ_8K - 1,
> > + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
> > + },
> > + };
> > +
> > + return mxs_add_platform_device_dmamask("imx23-fb", -1,
> > + res, ARRAY_SIZE(res), pdata, sizeof(*pdata), DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > +}
> > +#endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX23 */
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX28
> > +struct platform_device *__init mx28_add_mxsfb(
> > + const struct mxsfb_platform_data *pdata)
> > +{
> > + struct resource res[] = {
> > + {
> > + .start = MX28_LCDIF_BASE_ADDR,
> > + .end = MX28_LCDIF_BASE_ADDR + SZ_8K - 1,
> > + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
> > + },
> > + };
> > +
> > + return mxs_add_platform_device_dmamask("imx28-fb", -1,
> > + res, ARRAY_SIZE(res), pdata, sizeof(*pdata), DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > +}
> > +#endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX28 */
>
> Generally, we have macro mxs_fb_data_entry and function mxs_add_fb
> in this file. It's nothing but all about consistency. We do not
> want some later coming platform device looking at this as example,
> and bring more inconsistency into mach-mxs platform device codes.
My opinion on this is that we should not use complex ## macro constructs
where not necessary. With a device which is only present once on the SoC
it is not necessary, so I skippped it. And yes, if someone is in the
same situation with a single device on a system, he actually should take
this as an example. So no, I don't agree with you.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-18 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-16 9:56 [PATCH v2] i.MX23/28 Framebuffer driver Sascha Hauer
2011-02-16 9:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] video: Add i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver Sascha Hauer
2011-02-18 5:24 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-18 8:30 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-02-18 8:57 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-18 12:29 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-21 14:17 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-02-16 9:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM i.MX23/28: Add framebuffer device support Sascha Hauer
2011-02-18 6:14 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-18 8:46 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2011-02-18 9:17 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-18 9:26 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-02-18 9:36 ` Shawn Guo
2011-02-21 14:18 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-02-23 3:28 ` Shawn Guo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-02-28 8:02 [PATCH v3] i.MX23/28 Framebuffer support Sascha Hauer
2011-02-28 8:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM i.MX23/28: Add framebuffer device support Sascha Hauer
2011-02-09 13:20 [PATCH] i.MX23/28 framebuffer driver Sascha Hauer
2011-02-09 13:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM i.MX23/28: Add framebuffer device support Sascha Hauer
2011-02-09 14:33 ` Fabio Estevam
2011-02-10 3:23 ` Li Frank-B20596
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=20110218084625.GF24426@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).