On 7/14/2012 9:45 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Sekhar,
>
> On 13.07.2012 15:57, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> Hi Heiko,
>>
>> On 5/30/2012 3:49 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>>> add of support for the davinci i2c driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: Ben Dooks<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Wolfram Sang<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Grant Likely<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Sekhar Nori<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk<[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki<[email protected]>
> [...]
[...]
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>> index a76d85f..4e7a966 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
[...]
>>> static int davinci_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct davinci_i2c_dev *dev;
>>> @@ -676,6 +695,25 @@ static int davinci_i2c_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> dev->irq = irq->start;
>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, dev);
>>>
>>> + if ((dev->dev->platform_data == NULL)&&
>>> + (pdev->dev.of_node)) {
>>> + u32 prop;
>>> +
>>> + dev->pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(struct davinci_i2c_platform_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!dev->pdata) {
>>> + r = -ENOMEM;
>>> + goto err_free_mem;
>>> + }
>>> + memcpy(dev->pdata,&davinci_i2c_platform_data_default,
>>> + sizeof(struct davinci_i2c_platform_data));
>>> + if (!of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "clock-frequency",
>>> + &prop))
>>> + dev->pdata->bus_freq = prop / 1000;
>>> + if (!of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "bus-delay",
>>> + &prop))
>>> + dev->pdata->bus_delay = prop;
>>
>> You are leaving out two other platform data members (the gpio pins
>> corresponding to data and clock) from DT data. We should be able to
>> get that information from DT too, right?
>
> Yes, but I had not ported the GPIO driver to OF ...
Okay. Understood. They can added once GPIO has been ported too and this
part is tested.
>
>> So, I took this patch and tried to see if pdata maintenance can be
>> simplified and came with the diff below. Can you have a look and see
>> if this makes sense? I tested this using i2cdetect both with and
>> without DT.
>
> Tested your patch on the enbw_cmc board with a LM75 on the enbw_cmc
> board, works fine. Can I post a "v6" of my patch, merged with your
> patch below and your Signed-off?
Yes, please do. You can post it as in independent patch (not as part of
a series) since the patch does not have any dependencies.
Thanks,
Sekhar
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
