From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 2/4] iio: adc: exynos_adc: Control special clock of ADC to support Exynos3250 ADC Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:47:42 +0200 Message-ID: <6485839.CnzmD0SeQj@wuerfel> References: <1405663186-26464-1-git-send-email-cw00.choi@samsung.com> <1405663186-26464-3-git-send-email-cw00.choi@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1405663186-26464-3-git-send-email-cw00.choi@samsung.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, t.figa@samsung.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Chanwoo Choi , kyungmin.park@samsung.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org, ch.naveen@samsung.com, jic23@kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 18 July 2014 14:59:44 Chanwoo Choi wrote: > This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block. > If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework, > Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock. > > Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following: > - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC > > Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_adc' clock as following: > - 'sclk_adc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC > > Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_adc' clock > in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_adc' > clock in FSYS_BLK. Do you know if any of the older ADC blocks have an "sclk" input as well? Further, why is it called "sclk_adc" rather than just "sclk"? > @@ -199,13 +262,20 @@ static void exynos_adc_v2_start_conv(struct exynos_adc *info, > writel(con1 | ADC_CON_EN_START, ADC_V2_CON1(info->regs)); > } > > +#define __EXYNOS_ADC_V2_DATA \ > + .num_channels = MAX_ADC_V2_CHANNELS, \ > + .init_hw = exynos_adc_v2_init_hw, \ > + .exit_hw = exynos_adc_v2_exit_hw, \ > + .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v2_clear_irq, \ > + .start_conv = exynos_adc_v2_start_conv, \ > + > static struct exynos_adc_data const exynos_adc_v2_data = { > - .num_channels = MAX_ADC_V2_CHANNELS, > + __EXYNOS_ADC_V2_DATA > +}; > > - .init_hw = exynos_adc_v2_init_hw, > - .exit_hw = exynos_adc_v2_exit_hw, > - .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v2_clear_irq, > - .start_conv = exynos_adc_v2_start_conv, > +static struct exynos_adc_data const exynos3250_adc_v2_data = { > + __EXYNOS_ADC_V2_DATA > + .needs_sclk = true, > }; I think the macro hurts readability. Please just duplicate the definition here. > static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = { > @@ -215,6 +285,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = { > }, { > .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", > .data = (void *)&exynos_adc_v2_data, > + }, { > + .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-adc-v2", > + .data = (void *)&exynos3250_adc_v2_data, > }, > {}, Remove the '(void *)' cast here and mark the structure as 'const'. We intentionally use a 'const void *' type here to verify that the driver doesn't modify the per-device type data at runtime, which would be bad if you ever have multiple device instances. Arnd