On Friday 16 September 2011 03:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:01PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:

quoted

Modify the twl regulator driver to extract the regulator_init_data from
device tree when passed, instead of getting it through platform_data
structures (on non-DT builds)

Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak<redacted>
---
  drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c |   28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
  1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
index ee8747f..df1b95a 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c

@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  #include<linux/regulator/driver.h>
  #include<linux/regulator/machine.h>
  #include<linux/i2c/twl.h>
+#include<linux/of.h>
+#include<linux/of_regulator.h>


  /*

@@ -1011,6 +1013,9 @@ static int __devinit twlreg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  	struct regulation_constraints	*c;
  	struct regulator_dev		*rdev;

+	if (pdev->dev.of_node)
+		of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "ti,reg-id",&pdev->id);
+

Don't do this.  As much as possible, don't reply on plaform_device->id
when using DT.  Plus it is illegal to modify pdev->id after the device
is registered.

yeah, I did this hackery to just get around the drivers per-regulator
lookup table for which it uses the pdev->id as the index.
I will need to do this lookup based on compatible instead I guess.

quoted

  	for (i = 0, info = NULL; i<  ARRAY_SIZE(twl_regs); i++) {
  		if (twl_regs[i].desc.id != pdev->id)
  			continue;

@@ -1020,7 +1025,11 @@ static int __devinit twlreg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  	if (!info)
  		return -ENODEV;

-	initdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
+	if (pdev->dev.of_node)
+		initdata = of_get_regulator_init_data(pdev->dev.of_node);
+	else
+		initdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
+
  	if (!initdata)
  		return -EINVAL;

@@ -1101,14 +1110,27 @@ static int __devexit twlreg_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)

  MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl_reg");

+#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
+static const struct of_device_id twl_of_match[] __devinitconst = {
+	{ .compatible = "ti,twl-reg", },

This looks rather generic.  Is this a specific chip?  It should be.

We have multiple chips in the twl family like twl6030/twl6040/twl6025
but just one driver which handles all variants.

g.

quoted

+	{},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, twl_of_match);
+#else
+#define twl_of_match NULL
+#endif
+
  static struct platform_driver twlreg_driver = {
  	.probe		= twlreg_probe,
  	.remove		= __devexit_p(twlreg_remove),
  	/* NOTE: short name, to work around driver model truncation of
  	 * "twl_regulator.12" (and friends) to "twl_regulator.1".
  	 */
-	.driver.name	= "twl_reg",
-	.driver.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
+	.driver  = {
+		.name  = "twl_reg",
+		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+		.of_match_table = twl_of_match,
+	},
  };

  static int __init twlreg_init(void)
--
1.7.1