From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/7] OMAP3: beagle: don't touch omap_device internals Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:59:54 +0300 Message-ID: <20110728125954.GE9069@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> References: <1311292338-11830-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1311292338-11830-4-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110722085716.GI32058@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110728055346.GA11921@foobar> <4E315C9F.1030801@ti.com> Reply-To: balbi@ti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1300831852==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E315C9F.1030801@ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Cousson, Benoit" Cc: "Menon, Nishanth" , "Hilman, Kevin" , Paul Walmsley , "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "Balbi, Felipe" , Grant Likely , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --===============1300831852== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BtLpl2nkGUzqmEOn" Content-Disposition: inline --BtLpl2nkGUzqmEOn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 02:57:03PM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > Hi Nishanth, >=20 > 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 =3D omap_hwmod_lookup("mpu"); > >>>- struct omap_hwmod *dh =3D omap_hwmod_lookup("iva"); > >>>- struct device *dev; > >>>+ struct device *mpu_dev, *iva_dev; > >>> > >>>- if (!mh || !dh) { > >>>+ mpu_dev =3D omap2_get_mpuss_device(); > >>>+ iva_dev =3D 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 > >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 > >--- > > 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 > > #include > >+#include >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 balbi --BtLpl2nkGUzqmEOn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOMV1KAAoJEAv8Txj19kN16C4IAI6F17Ljz8WI9yvZQ7Y/GXW1 T4ytF9UdQ3WQ5ZW0AQpF7W369TtsONItGj0kjCqr1dqo68rn4Vpgrxk5it1c60Fh VzwkEWif057ln7U5YvNm936CLThfecXAokm+CvW9hGGkpg9TFPTGptjlCiNqSHhZ Ff8A5TEXhTQ9NLzlotRuHdwv+9SpvA9Z28EkLSufZm0XSNebwk9S7g/tRscQYxdP qqrZSAZb7otKb+Wg66dQwJnk+J41JOjT1c4lnxJRLb5ZsEZ2jIJlTZxJ61oksnQl nEbO7gh83ZLsQsAG5obtlSd43n/IXe6b33E9xB9MKqwnb3BJMOJdvaZPMoEHeBg= =HSQq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BtLpl2nkGUzqmEOn-- --===============1300831852== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel --===============1300831852==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:59:54 +0300 Subject: [RFC/PATCH 2/7] OMAP3: beagle: don't touch omap_device internals In-Reply-To: <4E315C9F.1030801@ti.com> References: <1311292338-11830-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1311292338-11830-4-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110722085716.GI32058@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110728055346.GA11921@foobar> <4E315C9F.1030801@ti.com> Message-ID: <20110728125954.GE9069@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 > >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 > >--- > > 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 > > #include > >+#include > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: