From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: probe and init of variant driver from
 the platform device
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:07:13 +0200
Message-ID: <1433426833.15728.15.camel@x220>
References: <1433324255-27510-1-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org>
	 <1433324255-27510-5-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.21]:39274 "EHLO
	lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751955AbbFDOHX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:07:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1433324255-27510-5-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org>
Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
To: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>
Cc: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, santoshsy@gmail.com, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org, subhashj@codeaurora.org, gbroner@codeaurora.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@gmail.com>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@odin.com>, Dolev Raviv <draviv@codeaurora.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@codeaurora.org>, Raviv Shvili <rshvili@codeaurora.org>, Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>, "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:37 +0300, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c

>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufs_hba_qcom_vops);

Nothing uses this export. It's still a (static) symbol that is not
included in any header. I think this export serves no purpose. Am I
missing something subtle here?

> +/**
> + * ufs_qcom_probe - probe routine of the driver
> + * @pdev: pointer to Platform device handle
> + *
> + * Always return 0
> + */
> +static int ufs_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, (void *)&ufs_hba_qcom_vops);

(Cast to void * should not be needed.)

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * ufs_qcom_remove - set driver_data of the device to NULL
> + * @pdev: pointer to platform device handle
> + *
> + * Always return 0
> + */
> +static int ufs_qcom_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id ufs_qcom_of_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,ufs_variant"},
> +	{},
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver ufs_qcom_pltform = {
> +	.probe	= ufs_qcom_probe,
> +	.remove	= ufs_qcom_remove,
> +	.driver	= {
> +		.name	= "ufs_qcom",
> +		.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ufs_qcom_of_match),
> +	},
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(ufs_qcom_pltform);

> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.c

> +	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> +	struct device_node *ufs_variant_node;
> +	struct platform_device *ufs_variant_pdev;
 
> -	hba->vops = get_variant_ops(&pdev->dev);
> +	err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
> +	if (err)
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> +			"%s: of_platform_populate() failed\n", __func__);
> +
> +	ufs_variant_node = of_get_next_available_child(node, NULL);
> +
> +	if (!ufs_variant_node) {
> +		dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to find ufs_variant_node child\n");
> +	} else {
> +		ufs_variant_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(ufs_variant_node);
> +
> +		if (ufs_variant_pdev)
> +			hba->vops = (struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *)
> +				dev_get_drvdata(&ufs_variant_pdev->dev);

(Another cast that I think is not needed.)

> +	}

If I scanned this correctly, the dev_set_drvdata() and dev_get_drvdata()
pair adds an actual user of ufs_hba_qcom_vops. So that ends the obvious
issue I think the code currently has. And I gladly defer to the scsi
people to determine whether that is done the right way.

Thanks,


Paul Bolle