On Wed, 13 May 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Lee, > > On 05/13/2015 01:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Sat, 09 May 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > >> From: Todd Broch <[email protected]> > >> > >> If the EC device tree node has sub-nodes, try to instantiate them as > >> MFD sub-devices. We can configure the EC features provided by the board. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Todd Broch <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]> > >> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Gwendal Grignou <[email protected]> > >> Tested-by: Gwendal Grignou <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes since v1: > >> - Added Heiko Stuebner and Gwendal Grignou Tested-by tag > >> - Added Gwendal Grignou Reviewed-by tag > >> - Use automatic device ID instead of 1 as suggested by Lee Jones > >> - Remove #ifdeffery and check for of_node to register sub-devices > >> Suggested by Lee Jones > >> --- > >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 22 +++++++++++----------- > >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c > >> index c4aecc6f8373..1574a9352a6d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c > >> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > >> * battery charging and regulator control, firmware update. > >> */ > >> > >> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> > >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> > >> #include <linux/slab.h> > >> #include <linux/module.h> > >> @@ -109,18 +110,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cros_ec_cmd_xfer); > >> > >> static const struct mfd_cell cros_devs[] = { > >> { > >> - .name = "cros-ec-keyb", > >> - .id = 1, > >> - .of_compatible = "google,cros-ec-keyb", > >> - }, > >> - { > >> - .name = "cros-ec-i2c-tunnel", > >> - .id = 2, > >> - .of_compatible = "google,cros-ec-i2c-tunnel", > >> - }, > >> - { > >> .name = "cros-ec-ctl", > >> - .id = 3, > >> + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, > >> }, > >> }; > >> > >> @@ -150,6 +141,15 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev) > >> return err; > >> } > >> > >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) { > > > > You don't need to check for OF. of_node will be NULL if OF isn't > > enabled. > > > > Yes, you don't need it but IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) causes the check to be > optimized away by the compiler if CONFIG_OF is not enabled AFAIK. > > Without the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) check, this becomes a pointless pointer > check that will always evaluate to false on systems without CONFIG_OF > since as you said of_node will be present when CONFIG_OF is not enabled. > But the compiler has no way to know it will always be NULL to optimize it > away AFAICT.
Yes, you're absolutely right. You passed the test. ;) Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]> > >> + err = of_platform_populate(dev->of_node, NULL, NULL, dev); > >> + if (err) { > >> + mfd_remove_devices(dev); > >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to register sub-devices\n"); > >> + return err; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + > >> dev_info(dev, "Chrome EC device registered\n"); > >> > >> return 0; -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
