Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices

[Suman Anna]

Hi Markus,

On 07/16/2014 03:50 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> If I may nit-pick here for a minute...
> 
> On 11 July 2014 15:04, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Logic has been added to the OMAP2+ mailbox code to parse the
>> mailbox dt nodes and construct the different sub-mailboxes
>> associated with the instance. The DT representation of the
>> sub-mailbox devices is different from legacy platform data
>> representation to allow flexibility of interrupt configuration
>> between Tx and Rx fifos (to also possibly allow simplex devices
>> in the future). The DT representation gathers similar information
>> that was being passed previously through the platform data, except
>> for the number of fifos, interrupts and interrupt type information,
>> which are gathered through driver compatible match data.
>>
>> The non-DT support has to be maintained for now to not break
>> OMAP3 legacy boot, and the legacy-style code will be cleaned
>> up once OMAP3 is also converted to DT-boot only.
>>
>> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 132 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
> 
> [...]
> 
>>  static int omap_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  {
>>         struct resource *mem;
>>         int ret;
>>         struct omap_mbox **list, *mbox, *mboxblk;
>>         struct omap_mbox_pdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> -       struct omap_mbox_dev_info *info;
>> +       struct omap_mbox_dev_info *info = NULL;
>> +       struct omap_mbox_fifo_info *finfo, *finfoblk;
>>         struct omap_mbox_device *mdev;
>>         struct omap_mbox_fifo *fifo;
>> -       u32 intr_type;
>> +       struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> +       struct device_node *child;
>> +       const struct of_device_id *match;
>> +       u32 intr_type, info_count;
>> +       u32 num_users, num_fifos;
>> +       u32 tmp[3];
>>         u32 l;
>>         int i;
>>
>> -       if (!pdata || !pdata->info_cnt || !pdata->info) {
>> +       if (!node && (!pdata || !pdata->info_cnt || !pdata->info)) {
>>                 pr_err("%s: platform not supported\n", __func__);
>>                 return -ENODEV;
>>         }
>>
>> +       if (node) {
> 
> I noticed here you are using
> 
>     if (node)
>         /* DT stuff goes here */
>     else
>         /* non-DT stuff goes here */
> 
> but below the logic is reversed.
> 
>> +               match = of_match_device(omap_mailbox_of_match, &pdev->dev);
>> +               if (!match)
>> +                       return -ENODEV;
>> +               intr_type = (u32)match->data;
>> +
>> +               if (of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,mbox-num-users",
>> +                                        &num_users))
>> +                       return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +               if (of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,mbox-num-fifos",
>> +                                        &num_fifos))
>> +                       return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +               info_count = of_get_available_child_count(node);
>> +               if (!info_count) {
>> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no available mbox devices found\n");
>> +                       return -ENODEV;
>> +               }
>> +       } else { /* non-DT device creation */
>> +               info_count = pdata->info_cnt;
>> +               info = pdata->info;
>> +               intr_type = pdata->intr_type;
>> +               num_users = pdata->num_users;
>> +               num_fifos = pdata->num_fifos;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       finfoblk = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, info_count * sizeof(*finfoblk),
>> +                               GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       if (!finfoblk)
>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +       finfo = finfoblk;
>> +       child = NULL;
>> +       for (i = 0; i < info_count; i++, finfo++) {
>> +               if (!node) {
> 
> Here it's
>     if (!node)
>         /* non-DT stuff */
>     else
>         /* DT stuff */
> 
> I think the "if (node) ..." version is a bit cleaner. Besides it's
> nice if code is consistent. Do you mind changing the if statement here
> so it matches the logic used above?

No, not at all, I will fix this up in the next version. I have to revise
the framework adaptation patches anyway (remove tidspbridge changes as
that driver is getting deleted and add a missing of_node_put).

Do you prefer that I split up this series between DT conversion and
framework adaptation or good with posting all the patches together? If
latter, I will refresh it once the v9 version of the framework comes out.

regards
Suman

> 
>> +                       finfo->tx_id = info->tx_id;
>> +                       finfo->rx_id = info->rx_id;
>> +                       finfo->tx_usr = info->usr_id;
>> +                       finfo->tx_irq = info->irq_id;
>> +                       finfo->rx_usr = info->usr_id;
>> +                       finfo->rx_irq = info->irq_id;
>> +                       finfo->name = info->name;
>> +                       info++;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       child = of_get_next_available_child(node, child);
>> +                       ret = of_property_read_u32_array(child, "ti,mbox-tx",
>> +                                                        tmp, ARRAY_SIZE(tmp));
>> +                       if (ret)
>> +                               return ret;
>> +                       finfo->tx_id = tmp[0];
>> +                       finfo->tx_irq = tmp[1];
>> +                       finfo->tx_usr = tmp[2];
>> +
>> +                       ret = of_property_read_u32_array(child, "ti,mbox-rx",
>> +                                                        tmp, ARRAY_SIZE(tmp));
>> +                       if (ret)
>> +                               return ret;
>> +                       finfo->rx_id = tmp[0];
>> +                       finfo->rx_irq = tmp[1];
>> +                       finfo->rx_usr = tmp[2];
>> +
>> +                       finfo->name = child->name;
>> +               }
>> +               if (finfo->tx_id >= num_fifos || finfo->rx_id >= num_fifos ||
>> +                   finfo->tx_usr >= num_users || finfo->rx_usr >= num_users)
>> +                       return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>> +

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/