Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

[Stefan Wahren]

Hi Lee,

[add Rob and Mark]

> Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> hat am 29. September 2016 um 19:15
> geschrieben:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> hat am 28. September 2016 um 03:05
> > > geschrieben:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Ksenija Stanojevic wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +static int mxs_lradc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > +	struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
> > > > +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc;
> > > > +	struct mfd_cell *cells = NULL;
> > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > +	u32 ts_wires = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	lradc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lradc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +	if (!lradc)
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	of_id = of_match_device(mxs_lradc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> > > > +	lradc->soc = (enum mxs_lradc_id)of_id->data;
> > > > +
> > > > +	lradc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR(lradc->clk)) {
> > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to get the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > +		return PTR_ERR(lradc->clk);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(lradc->clk);
> > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > +		return ret;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "fsl,lradc-touchscreen-wires",
> > > 
> > > Have you moved the documentation into devicetree/bindings/mfd?
> > > 
> > 
> > i hope it's okay if i answer. The binding has moved to
> > devicetree/binding/iio/adc/ [1]
> > 
> > Should it move completely to mfd or split too?
> > 
> > I'm asking myself how we keep DT ABI in the latter case.
> > 
> > [1] -
> > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.txt
> 
> I haven't read into the documentation too to deeply, but it stands to
> reason that the bindings which are now being used in MFD should be
> documented in the MFD binding document, and the ones which are no longer
> used in the IIO driver should be removed.

sure, that isn't a problem.

The more interesting question would be: do we need a new compatible string for
the mfd driver?

In that case the ADC won't probe for the combination of old devicetree blobs and
new kernel.

Regards
Stefan

> 
> -- 
> Lee Jones
> Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Stefan Wahren wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> [add Rob and Mark]
> 
> > Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> hat am 29. September 2016 um 19:15
> > geschrieben:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> hat am 28. September 2016 um 03:05
> > > > geschrieben:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Ksenija Stanojevic wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int mxs_lradc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > > > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > > +	struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
> > > > > +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc;
> > > > > +	struct mfd_cell *cells = NULL;
> > > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > > +	u32 ts_wires = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	lradc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lradc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > +	if (!lradc)
> > > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	of_id = of_match_device(mxs_lradc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> > > > > +	lradc->soc = (enum mxs_lradc_id)of_id->data;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	lradc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(lradc->clk)) {
> > > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to get the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > > +		return PTR_ERR(lradc->clk);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(lradc->clk);
> > > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > > +		return ret;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "fsl,lradc-touchscreen-wires",
> > > > 
> > > > Have you moved the documentation into devicetree/bindings/mfd?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > i hope it's okay if i answer. The binding has moved to
> > > devicetree/binding/iio/adc/ [1]
> > > 
> > > Should it move completely to mfd or split too?
> > > 
> > > I'm asking myself how we keep DT ABI in the latter case.
> > > 
> > > [1] -
> > > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.txt
> > 
> > I haven't read into the documentation too to deeply, but it stands to
> > reason that the bindings which are now being used in MFD should be
> > documented in the MFD binding document, and the ones which are no longer
> > used in the IIO driver should be removed.
> 
> sure, that isn't a problem.
> 
> The more interesting question would be: do we need a new compatible string for
> the mfd driver?

No, I don't think that is necessary.

> In that case the ADC won't probe for the combination of old devicetree blobs and
> new kernel.


-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog