Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 May 2008 16:14:23 -0600 | From | "Grant Likely" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] spi: Add OF binding support for SPI busses |
| |
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:36:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> + /* Store a pointer to the node in the device structure */ >> + of_node_get(nc); >> + spi->dev.archdata.of_node = nc; >> + >> + /* Register the new device */ >> + rc = spi_register_device(spi); >> + if (rc) { >> + dev_err(&master->dev, "spi_device register error %s\n", >> + np->full_name); >> + spi_device_release(spi); >> + } > > No way to pass platform data... can you suggest any idea to use > this for things like > "[POWERPC] 86xx: mpc8610_hpcd: add support for SPI and MMC-over-SPI" > I've sent just recently...?
That's right. platform_data being a very driver specific thing there is no way to generically extract a pdata structure from the device tree. Instead, I'm storing the device node in archdata.of_node (line immediately above spi_register_device) so that drivers can read the device node themselves to populate a platform_device structure. (Protected by CONFIG_OF of course).
> Maybe this code could do something like > spi->dev.platform_data = nc->data; > and board code would fill nc->data at early stages? This needs to be a > convention, not just random use though.. Maybe we can expand the struct > device_node to explicitly include .platform_data for such cases?
Hmmm, as you say, this could end up being rather messy. However, by passing the device node pointer, the driver could extract that data on a per case basis. (ie. it would be decided on a per driver basis where to get the platform data). I'm not sure; this bears more thought...
Cheers, g.
-- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
| |