lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] drm/exynos: Get HDMI version from device tree
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 05:37 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> n 02/05/2013 04:42 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
>>>> Use the compatible string in the device tree to determine which
>>>> registers/functions to use in the HDMI driver. Also changes the
>>>> references from v13 to 4210 and v14 to 4212 to reflect the IP
>>>> block version instead of the HDMI version.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/exynos/hdmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/exynos/hdmi.txt
>>>
>>> Binding looks sane to me.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c
>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>> static struct of_device_id hdmi_match_types[] = {
>>>> {
>>>> - .compatible = "samsung,exynos5-hdmi",
>>>> - .data = (void *)HDMI_TYPE14,
>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos4-hdmi",
>>>> }, {
>>>> /* end node */
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Why not fill in all the "base" compatible values there (I think you need
>>> this anyway so that DTs don't all have to be compatible with
>>> samsung,exynos4-hdmi), with .data containing the HDMI_VER_EXYNOS*
>>> values, then ...
>>>
>>
>> At the moment, all DTs have to be compatible with exynos4-hdmi since
>> it provides the base for the current driver. The driver uses 4210 and
>> 4212 to differentiate between different register addresses and
>> features, but most things are just exynos4-hdmi compatible.
>
> The DT nodes should include only the compatible values that the HW is
> actually compatible with. If the HW isn't compatible with exynos4-hdmi,
> that value shouldn't be in the compatible property, but instead whatever
> the "base" value that the HW really is compatible with. The driver can
> support multiple "base" compatible values from this table.
>

All devices that use this driver are compatible, at some level, with
exynos4-hdmi, so I think its usage is correct here.

>>>> @@ -2218,17 +2217,18 @@ static int hdmi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos4210-hdmi"))
>>>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4210;
>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos4212-hdmi"))
>>>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4212;
>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "samsung,exynos5250-hdmi"))
>>>> + hdata->version |= HDMI_VER_EXYNOS5250;
>>>
>>> Instead of that, do roughly:
>>>
>>> match = of_match_device(hdmi_match_types, &pdev->dev);
>>> if (match)
>>> hdata->version |= (int)match->data;
>>>
>>> That way, it's all table-based. Any future additions to
>>> hdmi_match_types[] won't require another if statement to be added to
>>> probe().
>>
>> I don't think it's that easy. of_match_device returns the first match
>> from the device table, so I'd still need to iterate through the
>> matches. I could still break this out into a table, but I don't think
>> of_match_device is the right way to probe it.
>
> You shouldn't have to iterate over multiple matches. of_match_device()
> is supposed to return the match for the first entry in the compatible
> property, then if there was no match, move on to looking at the next
> entry in the compatible property, etc. In practice, I think it's still
> not implemented quite correctly for this, but you can make it work by
> putting the newest compatible value first in the match table.

I think the only way that works is if you hardcode the compatible
versions in the driver, like this:

static struct of_device_id hdmi_match_types[] = {
{
.compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-hdmi",
.data = (void *)(HDMI_VER_EXYNOS5250 | HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4212);
}, {
.compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-hdmi",
.data = (void *)HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4212;
}, {
.compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-hdmi",
.data = (void *)HDMI_VER_EXYNOS4210;
}, {
/* end node */
}
};

In that case, it eliminates the benefit of using device tree to
determine the compatible bits. I hope I'm just being thick and missing
something.

Sean


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-06 02:41    [W:0.109 / U:11.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site