From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sascha Hauer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio/mxc: get rid of the uses of cpu_is_mx() Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:49:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20110704094921.GG6069@pengutronix.de> References: <1309681017-22970-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1309681017-22970-2-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20110704064603.GW6069@pengutronix.de> <20110704092800.GG10245@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110704092800.GG10245@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Shawn Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 05:28:01PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:46:03AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 04:16:56PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > The patch removes all the uses of cpu_is_mx(). Instead, it utilizes > > > platform_device_id to distinguish the gpio differences among SoCs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo > > > Cc: Grant Likely > > > Cc: Sascha Hauer > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx1.c | 8 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx21.c | 12 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx25.c | 8 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx27.c | 12 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx31.c | 6 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx35.c | 6 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-mx5/mm-mx50.c | 12 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-mx5/mm.c | 22 ++-- > > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-gpio-mxc.c | 4 +- > > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/common.h | 2 +- > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 11 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) > > > > > > Summarizing the renames up: > > > > i.MX1 -> imx1-gpio > > i.MX21 -> imx2-gpio > > i.MX25 -> imx-gpio > > i.MX27 -> imx2-gpio > > i.MX31 -> imx-gpio > > i.MX35 -> imx-gpio > > i.MX50 -> imx-gpio > > i.MX51 -> imx-gpio > > i.MX53 -> imx-gpio > > > > This is not consitent. Please either use the full SoC name for all > > device ids or use something like imx-gpio-v1, v2... > > It's not good that the i.MX25 is not a imx2 and that the 'modern' > > i.MXs only have imx-gpio. We all know that your hardware designers > > will be creative enough to change the register layout again in the > > future. > > > Ok, here it is. It's avoid confusion in machine code, but every > time we add a new soc we need to change touch this table, even if > the new soc has a total compatible gpio to IMX_GPIO. I'm fine with > either way. I'm also fine with imx1-gpio, imx21-gpio and imx31-gpio and all others get a compatible entry with these like you did in the uart driver. I only want to avoid to have a imx2-gpio when a i.MX25 is incompatible with this. When we do so it's probably worth to put this into a comment somewhere next to the id table. I can imagine people wonder why only such ancient SoCs are supported. Sascha > > static struct platform_device_id mxc_gpio_devtype[] = { > { > .name = "imx1-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX1_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx21-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX2_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx25-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx27-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX2_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx31-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx35-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx50-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx51-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > .name = "imx53-gpio", > .driver_data = IMX_GPIO, > }, { > /* sentinel */ > } > }; > > -- > Regards, > Shawn > > -- 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 |