Re: [PATCH 16/19] mfd: Use mfd cell platform_data for tps6105x cells platform bits

Linus Walleij
2011-05-09T07:05:21Z

2011/5/9 Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>:

> With the addition of a platform device mfd_cell pointer, MFD drivers
> can go back to passing platform data back to their sub drivers.
> This allows for an mfd_cell->mfd_data removal and thus keep the
> sub drivers MFD agnostic. This is mostly needed for non MFD aware
> sub drivers.
>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>

I have some question marks on this one...

> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6105x.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6105x.c
> @@ -183,7 +183,8 @@ static int __devinit tps6105x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>        /* Set up and register the platform devices. */
>        for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tps6105x_cells); i++) {
>                /* One state holder for all drivers, this is simple */
> -               tps6105x_cells[i].mfd_data = tps6105x;
> +               tps6105x_cells[i].platform_data = tps6105x;
> +               tps6105x_cells[i].pdata_size = sizeof(*tps6105x);

ACK

> --- a/drivers/regulator/tps6105x-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps6105x-regulator.c
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ static struct regulator_desc tps6105x_regulator_desc = {
>  */
>  static int __devinit tps6105x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = mfd_get_data(pdev);
> +       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;

Can you use platform_get_drvdata(pdev); instead?

>        struct tps6105x_platform_data *pdata = tps6105x->pdata;
>        int ret;
>
> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static int __devinit tps6105x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>  static int __devexit tps6105x_regulator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;

And this is a NO-OP, actually a bug in the present code, just leave it
as it is and the other changes removing the mfd->mfd_data fixes the bug...

Yours,
Linus Walleij