On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
[...]
If ufshcd-pltfrm driver is loaded before ufs-qcom, (what actually
happens
always), then the
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
[...]
If ufshcd-pltfrm
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
[...]
If ufshcd-pltfrm
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:21 +, Dov Levenglick wrote:
Hi James,
Rob raises a point that we don't agree with. On the other hand, we are not
capable of convincing him in the validity of our approach - we are at an
impasse.
I would like to point out that our approach was reviewed by Paul and
Hi James,
Rob raises a point that we don't agree with. On the other hand, we are not
capable of convincing him in the validity of our approach - we are at an
impasse.
I would like to point out that our approach was reviewed by Paul and Mita
(external reviewers) and neither of them had the
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:21 +, Dov Levenglick wrote:
Hi James,
Rob raises a point that we don't agree with. On the other hand, we are
not
capable of convincing him in the validity of our approach - we are at an
impasse.
I would like to point out that our approach was reviewed by Paul
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dov Levenglick d...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
[...]
If ufshcd-pltfrm driver is loaded before ufs-qcom, (what actually
happens
always), then the
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
goto
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Akinobu Mita akinobu.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
goto out;
}
- hba-vops =
2015-06-08 0:32 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
1)
If ufshcd-pltfrm driver is loaded before ufs-qcom, (what actually happens
always), then the calling to of_platform_populate() which is added,
guarantees that ufs-qcom probe will be called and finish, before
ufshcd_pltfrm probe continues.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, yga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
goto
Thanks Paul for the review and comments.
please see inline.
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
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
goto out;
}
- hba-vops = get_variant_ops(pdev-dev);
+
2015-06-05 5:53 GMT+09:00 yga...@codeaurora.org:
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
goto out;
}
- hba-vops = get_variant_ops(pdev-dev);
+
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
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
goto out;
}
- hba-vops = get_variant_ops(pdev-dev);
+ err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL,
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
Hi Yaniv,
2015-06-03 18:37 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org:
@@ -321,7 +313,22 @@ static int ufshcd_pltfrm_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
goto out;
}
- hba-vops = get_variant_ops(pdev-dev);
+ err = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL,
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 16:07 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:37 +0300, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
+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.)
Only if
It does so by adding the following changes:
1. Introducing SCSI_UFS_QCOM as a platform device. Its probe
function registers a set of vops to its driver_data.
2. Adding an optional device tree sub-node, under SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM.
Now, the probe function of SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM invokes the
21 matches
Mail list logo
