| Message ID | 20110211181101.3a4325e4@queued.net |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | a23090ada44889322fe39142fb58ebc5794f709c |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 18:11 -0800, Andres Salomon wrote: > No need to explicitly set the cell's platform_data/data_size. > > Modify clients to use mfd_get_cell helper function instead of > accessing platform_data directly. Wold it be possible to separate out MTD-related changes?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:17:44 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 18:11 -0800, Andres Salomon wrote: > > No need to explicitly set the cell's platform_data/data_size. > > > > Modify clients to use mfd_get_cell helper function instead of > > accessing platform_data directly. > > Wold it be possible to separate out MTD-related changes? > It's possible, sure. Patch 09 is the only one that touches drivers/mtd. It would introduce build and/or runtime problems if mtd and mfd trees get out of synch, however. I was hoping to get subsystem maintainer ACKs and run everything through the mfd tree, if possible (though I haven't heard any feedback from Samuel about any of this yet).
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 02:00 -0800, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:17:44 +0200 > Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 18:11 -0800, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > No need to explicitly set the cell's platform_data/data_size. > > > > > > Modify clients to use mfd_get_cell helper function instead of > > > accessing platform_data directly. > > > > Wold it be possible to separate out MTD-related changes? > > > > It's possible, sure. Patch 09 is the only one that touches > drivers/mtd. It would introduce build and/or runtime problems if mtd > and mfd trees get out of synch, however. > > I was hoping to get subsystem maintainer ACKs and run everything > through the mfd tree, if possible (though I haven't heard any feedback > from Samuel about any of this yet). OK, I'm not MTD maintainer, but I'd say that you can merge it via mfd tree. I did no look at the whole set, but mtd changes look trivial and there should not be issues with merging that via the mfd tree.
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c b/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c index 9caeb4a..b9c1e4c 100644 --- a/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c +++ b/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c @@ -384,15 +384,6 @@ static int t7l66xb_probe(struct platform_device *dev) t7l66xb_attach_irq(dev); t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_NAND].driver_data = pdata->nand_data; - t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_NAND].platform_data = - &t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_NAND]; - t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_NAND].data_size = - sizeof(t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_NAND]); - - t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_MMC].platform_data = - &t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_MMC]; - t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_MMC].data_size = - sizeof(t7l66xb_cells[T7L66XB_CELL_MMC]); ret = mfd_add_devices(&dev->dev, dev->id, t7l66xb_cells, ARRAY_SIZE(t7l66xb_cells), diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/tmio_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/tmio_nand.c index 3041d1f..5bf63e3 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/tmio_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/tmio_nand.c @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static int tmio_nand_correct_data(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned char *buf, static int tmio_hw_init(struct platform_device *dev, struct tmio_nand *tmio) { - struct mfd_cell *cell = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); int ret; if (cell->enable) { @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ static int tmio_hw_init(struct platform_device *dev, struct tmio_nand *tmio) static void tmio_hw_stop(struct platform_device *dev, struct tmio_nand *tmio) { - struct mfd_cell *cell = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); tmio_iowrite8(FCR_MODE_POWER_OFF, tmio->fcr + FCR_MODE); if (cell->disable) @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static void tmio_hw_stop(struct platform_device *dev, struct tmio_nand *tmio) static int tmio_probe(struct platform_device *dev) { - struct mfd_cell *cell = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); struct tmio_nand_data *data = cell->driver_data; struct resource *fcr = platform_get_resource(dev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static int tmio_remove(struct platform_device *dev) #ifdef CONFIG_PM static int tmio_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, pm_message_t state) { - struct mfd_cell *cell = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); if (cell->suspend) cell->suspend(dev); @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ static int tmio_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, pm_message_t state) static int tmio_resume(struct platform_device *dev) { - struct mfd_cell *cell = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); + struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(dev); /* FIXME - is this required or merely another attack of the broken * SHARP platform? Looks suspicious.
No need to explicitly set the cell's platform_data/data_size. Modify clients to use mfd_get_cell helper function instead of accessing platform_data directly. Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> --- drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c | 9 --------- drivers/mtd/nand/tmio_nand.c | 10 +++++----- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)