From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757907Ab2K0C0d (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:26:33 -0500 Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:33126 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757885Ab2K0C0b (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:26:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:26:28 +0900 From: Simon Horman To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Laurent Pinchart , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt , Magnus Damm , Linus Walleij , Kuninori Morimoto , Phil Edworthy , Nobuhiro Iwamatsu Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/42] ARM: shmobile: Register PFC platform device Message-ID: <20121127022628.GD13206@verge.net.au> References: <1353464863-10281-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <1633136.U5nCbqepA4@avalon> <20121126010205.GF20490@verge.net.au> <1893460.x7qM5g2uhe@avalon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1893460.x7qM5g2uhe@avalon> Organisation: Horms Solutions Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:34:36AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Monday 26 November 2012 10:02:05 Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:43:15PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 14:16:33 Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:27:12AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > Add arch code to register the PFC platform device instead of calling > > > > > the driver directly. Platform device registration in the sh-pfc driver > > > > > will be removed. > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure that I understand the motivation for > > > > moving platform device registration from the driver into > > > > mach-shmobile. Could you explain this a little? > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > The traditional device model associates a driver with a device. For > > > historical reasons mach-shmobile doesn't define and register a platform > > > device for PFC hardware but calls an initialization function directly in > > > the PFC driver, passing it what is essentially platform data, including > > > resources. > > > > > > The PFC driver needs a struct device to pass to the pinctrl subsystem. As > > > no struct device corresponding to the hardware is created by > > > mach-shmobile, the driver creates one, registers it and registers itself > > > as a platform driver. The probe function is thus called synchronously, > > > with a valid struct platform_device. > > > > > > This is a hack that can't support device tree based instantiation, as the > > > platform device will be created when the platform is populated from the DT > > > in that case. To support DT (and to remove the hack), I've moved platform > > > device registration to mach-shmobile as it should be, like already done > > > for all (or most, I haven't checked if there's no similar hacks in other > > > drivers) the platform devices. This allows converting a board to DT by > > > just adding the PFC device node in the DT and removing the platform > > > device registration call in board code. > > > > > > I hope this made the intend of this part of the patch series clear. If > > > not, just tell me and I'll try to provide more explanations. > > > > Thanks Laurent, > > > > as it happens I was doing some work on pinmux and DT in as part of > > my kzm9g series, so what you describe above now makes a lot of sense to me. > > > > For this and all the other shmobile patches in this series: > > > > Acked-by: Simon Horman > > Thank you. I'll post a v2 of the patch set with board patches split per-SoC as > requested by Magnus to make backporting easier. As the shmobile will > significantly change, could you send me your ack on v2 ? > > > BTW, my kzm9g work is not intended to conflict with your work in any way > > and I apologise if it does. I was just trying to make something quickly to > > allow kzm9g DT work to move a little further forward. I very much welcome > > your work in this area and naturally the kzm9g will use it once it is ready. > > No worries. I'll handle the conflict. Do you plan to push it for v3.8 or v3.9 > ? Its too late for 3.8, so I was thinking about 3.9. I have rebased things on your v2 series and things seem to be working. So I'm now dependent on your pinmux work.