Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:53:02 +0100 | From | Eric Andersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] misc: clean up bmp085 driver |
| |
On 21:20 Tue 06 Mar , Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 March 2012, Eric Andersson wrote: > > This patch includes various cleaning of the bmp085 driver including: > > - Addition of platform_data and header file > > - Implement pm functions > > - Whitespaces and alignment fixes > > - Minor typos > > - Consistency fixes > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Nilsson <stefan.nilsson@unixphere.com> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Andersson <eric.andersson@unixphere.com> > > Most of the cleanups look good, just a few things that stick out: > > > static int __devinit bmp085_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > - const struct i2c_device_id *id) > > + const struct i2c_device_id *id) > > { > > struct bmp085_data *data; > > + struct bmp085_platform_data *pdata = client->dev.platform_data; > > + u8 chip_id = (pdata && pdata->chip_id) ? pdata->chip_id : > > + BMP085_CHIP_ID; > > int err = 0; > > > > + if (pdata && pdata->init_hw) { > > + err = pdata->init_hw(&client->dev); > > + if (err) { > > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s: init_hw failed!\n", > > + BMP085_NAME); > > + return err; > > + } > > + } > > + > > The addition of platform_data does not look like a cleanup to me, > it's a significant change in the interface to the platform, so I > would put it into a separate patch.
Yes, I agree.
> > + if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, BMP085_CHIP_ID_REG) != chip_id) { > > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s: chip_id failed!\n", BMP085_NAME); > > + err = -ENODEV; > > + goto exit_free; > > + } > > + > > This part looks like it belongs into the second patch where you add support > for more than one chip id. > > > diff --git a/include/linux/i2c/bmp085.h b/include/linux/i2c/bmp085.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..e6fc752 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/include/linux/i2c/bmp085.h > > Since this file only adds platform_data, I think it should go into > include/linux/platform_data/, not include/linux/i2c, and it should > be in the same patch as the change to use the platform data when you > split that out. > > Also, which platforms are actually using this driver? I could > not find any platform that defines a bmp085 platform_device. If this > is for new ARM platforms, I would rather not add platform_data at > all because those platforms will have to use device tree properties > rather than platform_data to pass initialization data.
Platform device? This is a pressure sensor connected as a peripheral device to the i2c bus. I don't think you will find any platform that uses this "by default" in the tree.
Of course I can add of_get_property() calls, but what is actually the long-term plan here for peripheral devices? Should they all abandon their platform data in favor of devicetree? How should the callbacks in platform data be handled, in my case pdata->init_hw()?
-- Best regards, Eric
http://www.unixphere.com
| |