Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:50:45 +0100 | From | Ben Dooks <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/4] MFD: Change mfd platform device usage to wrapper platform_device |
| |
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:31:04PM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > 2008/7/9 Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>: > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:47PM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > >> 2008/7/9 Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>: > >> > This patch changes the mfd core behaviour to wrapper the platform_device > >> > it creates in an struct mfd_device which contains the information > >> > about the cell that was created. > >> > > >> > 1) The creation of the resource list and then passing it to the > >> > platform_device_add_resources() causes the allocation of a > >> > large array on the stack as well as copying the source data > >> > twice (it is copied from the mfd_cell to the temporary array > >> > and then copied into the newly allocated array) > >> > > >> > 2) We can wrapper the platform_device into an mfd_device and use > >> > that to do the platform_device and resource allocation in one > >> > go to reduce the failiure. > >> > > >> > Note, is there actually any reason to pass the sub devices any > >> > information about the cell they are created from? The mfd core > >> > already makes the appropriate resource adjustments and anything > >> > else like clocks should be exported by the clock drivers? > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org> > >> > >> > >> NAK. > >> 0) It was discussed yesterday on the list and the decision was to go > >> in a different way. > >> I've provided a bit cleaner patch with the same idea, but then we > >> decided to go in a bit different way. > >> 1) I prefer patch by Mike Rapoport which is more clear and goes in a > >> more correct way. > > > > How "more correct", whilst the patch by Mike makes the platform data > > be passed from the cell, there is no longer any way to get from the > > platform device to the mfd_cell... > > Basically we have two choises for the subdevice driver: > 1) it doesn't know about cells at all (e.g. generic-bl, IIRC). Then we are safe > to loose that "cell" information > 2) If it does use cell information (to get access to hooks), we pass it > via platform_data pointer in the mfd_cell and we are ok with it.
Erm, that is complete non-answer. The driver model and various other parts of the kernel are littered with examples of embedding one structure within another to gain an C++ like object inheritance.
I've supplied an reasonable example of doing this to create an mfd_cell device from an platform_device without creating an large amount of code and improving the efficiency and code-lineage in the process. I do not see how this isn't "correct" or in any way breaing the current linux model of doing things.
> > > The current driver is being inefficent in the way it creates resources > > on the stack and then calls a routine that does an kalloc/memcpy on > > the resources. > > I don't see any inefficiency ATM. > > >> 2) Please examine the tmio-nand driver (was here on the list and on > >> linux-mtd). It uses the mfd_cell > >> to call hooks from the "host" driver (tc6393xb, more to be added soon). > > > > The one posted in [1] does not call these hooks at-all, can ou please > > explain why these hooks are needed in addition to the ones already > > available in the platform device driver? > > > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-June/022137.html > > + > +static int tmio_hw_init(struct platform_device *dev, struct tmio_nand *tmio) > +{ > + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); > + const struct resource *nfcr = NULL; > + unsigned long base; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < cell->num_resources; i++) > + if (!strcmp((cell->resources+i)->name, TMIO_NAND_CONTROL)) > + nfcr = &cell->resources[i]; > + > + if (nfcr == NULL) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + if (cell->enable) { > + int rc = cell->enable(dev); > + if (rc) > + return rc; > + } > > That cell->enable() is necessary to set up the host (in the tc6393xb > case to enable buffers) > to enable access to the nand.
So, the enable/disable calls might be useful, however is there any reason this could not be handled by the clock framework? The suspend/resume entries where not used, and I belive should not be in here.
As noted before, mfd_get_cell() got dropped by [2]
[2] http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20080708.153450.bb33046d.en.html
-- Ben
Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.
| |