# Re: \[PATCH V5 1/2\] video: exynos\_dp: Add device tree support to DP driver

- From: Sylwester Nawrocki \<sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com\>
- Date: 2012-10-15 21:14:06 
- List: linux-devicetree
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-devicetree/2012/10/8064252
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-samsung-soc/2012/10/8064181/t.md

```text
On 10/15/2012 10:14 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:44 AM Sylwester Nawrocki wrote
>>
>> On 10/12/2012 10:47 PM, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>>> This patch enables device tree based discovery support for DP driver.
>>> The driver is modified to handle platform data in both the cases:
>>> with DT and non-DT.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar<redacted>
>>> Acked-by: Jingoo Han<redacted>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c |  161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>    drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h |    2 +
>>>    2 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
...
>>> @@ -953,8 +1062,13 @@ static int __devexit exynos_dp_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	struct exynos_dp_platdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>>>    	struct exynos_dp_device *dp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>
>> This doesn't belong to your patch, but the above 2 lines could be written as:
>>
>>    	struct exynos_dp_device *dp = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>>
>> Same in functions exynos_dp_suspend() and exynos_dp_resume().
>
> No, above 2 lines cannot be reduced to 1 line, as you mentioned.
> This is because it makes build error.

Sorry, my bad. It looks fine in case of exynos_dp_remove().

But at exynos_dp_suspend/resume() there is something like:


static int exynos_dp_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
	struct exynos_dp_platdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
	struct exynos_dp_device *dp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);


You need only pdata and dp there. I think that simpler form would
do as well:

	struct exynos_dp_device *dp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
	struct exynos_dp_platdata *pdata = dev->platform_data;


Sorry, this is just a nitpicking.

BTW, shouldn't CONFIG_EXYNOS_VIDEO depend on ARCH_EXYNOS ?


--
Regards,
Sylwester
```