lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Core driver


On 2014/5/30 17:28, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> +static const struct i2c_device_id intel_soc_pmic_i2c_id[] = {
>>>>>> + {"INT33FD:00", (kernel_ulong_t)&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc},
>>>>>> + { }
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, intel_soc_pmic_i2c_id);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static struct acpi_device_id intel_soc_pmic_acpi_match[] = {
>>>>>> + {"INT33FD", (kernel_ulong_t)&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc},
>>>>>> + { },
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_soc_pmic_acpi_match);
>>>>>
>>>>> Does ACPI have a match function to extact it's .driver_data attribute?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, are you using it here? If not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ACPI table is used in i2c_device_match(), and the i2c table is used
>>>> in i2c_device_probe(), so the id in the i2c table is actually fed to
>>>> intel_soc_pmic_probe(). But I only found out now that having the i2c
>>>> table alone is enough, because i2c_device_match will fallback to the i2c
>>>> table if there's no ACPI table. So to keep it simple, I'll remove the
>>>> ACPI table completely.
>>>
>>> Actually, can you do it the other way round? Minimise the i2c table
>>> and populate the ACPI one. I'm just about to work on a separate
>>> patch-set which deprecates the use of the i2c table on DT and/or ACPI
>>> only registered devices.
>>
>> Current i2c_device_probe will only feed driver_data from i2c_device_id
>> table to intel_soc_pmic_probe(), because it uses i2c_match_id(). So if I
>> remove "&intel_soc_pmic_config_crc" from the i2c table, I will get NULL
>> from id->driver_data until your new patch fixes it.
>
> Right, which is why I asked if ACPI has a match function - I just
> looked and it does. So what you need to do is supply a very simple
> i2c_device_id struct (just until my patch lands, then there'll be no
> reason to supply one at all) and use acpi_match_device() instead of
> using id->driver_data.
>

Oh I see. You mean calling acpi_match_device() in my own probe(). I'll
change my code to do that in next version.

Best Regards
Lejun



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-31 05:01    [W:0.506 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site