Hi,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 02:57:03PM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> On 7/28/2011 7:53 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> >On 11:57-20110722, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>  	/* Custom OPP enabled for all xM versions */
> >>>  	if (cpu_is_omap3630()) {
> >>>-		struct omap_hwmod *mh = omap_hwmod_lookup("mpu");
> >>>-		struct omap_hwmod *dh = omap_hwmod_lookup("iva");
> >>>-		struct device *dev;
> >>>+		struct device *mpu_dev, *iva_dev;
> >>>
> >>>-		if (!mh || !dh) {
> >>>+		mpu_dev = omap2_get_mpuss_device();
> >>>+		iva_dev = omap2_get_iva_device();
> >>
> >>out of curiosity again, nothing to do with this patch.
> >>
> >>Maybe it would be nicer to have an api such as:
> >>
> >>omap2_get_device(name);
> >>
> >>there are already four devices to be gotten, if that number grows any
> >>bigger, so will the number of helper functions.
> >I agree, in fact, on a different topic, I hit the same requirement
> >here is the patch I had done:
> > From 9f226def811bd50e4bac02f427604034cef77706 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Nishanth Menon<nm@ti.com>
> >Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:02:32 -0500
> >Subject: [PATCH] OMAP: hwmod: add omap_hwmod_to_device
> >
> >omap_hwmod_to_device is useful for drivers when they need to
> >look up the device associated with a hwmod name to map back
> >into the device structure pointers. These ideally should
> >be used by drivers in mach directory. This could in effect
> >replace apis such as omap2_get_mpuss_device,
> >omap2_get_iva_device, omap2_get_l3_device, omap4_get_dsp_device
> >etc..
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon<nm@ti.com>
> >---
> >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c             |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/omap_hwmod.h |    2 +
> >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> >index 293fa6c..77d01a2 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> >@@ -142,6 +142,7 @@
> >  #include "powerdomain.h"
> >  #include<plat/clock.h>
> >  #include<plat/omap_hwmod.h>
> >+#include<plat/omap_device.h>
> 
> I'd rather put that code inside the omap_device.c instead of here.
> The omap_device layer is on top of the omap_hwmod.
> In order to minimize the dependencies from the low HW description
> layer to the omap_device layer, you should maybe define a
> omap_device_from_hwmod() function or something similar.
> 
> That being said, do we really need to get the device from the hwmod
> name? Cannot we use the device name instead?
> I do not know all the usecases, that why I'm asking.

that's a good question, I only suggested the above given the fact that
we already have four functions to grab four different devices. It was
only a way to combine all of those with a simple argument.

-- 
balbi