Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices

Hi Markus,

On 07/16/2014 03:50 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:

If I may nit-pick here for a minute...

On 11 July 2014 15:04, Suman Anna [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Logic has been added to the OMAP2+ mailbox code to parse the
mailbox dt nodes and construct the different sub-mailboxes
associated with the instance. The DT representation of the
sub-mailbox devices is different from legacy platform data
representation to allow flexibility of interrupt configuration
between Tx and Rx fifos (to also possibly allow simplex devices
in the future). The DT representation gathers similar information
that was being passed previously through the platform data, except
for the number of fifos, interrupts and interrupt type information,
which are gathered through driver compatible match data.

The non-DT support has to be maintained for now to not break
OMAP3 legacy boot, and the legacy-style code will be cleaned
up once OMAP3 is also converted to DT-boot only.

Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <redacted>
---
 drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c

[...]

quoted

 static int omap_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
        struct resource *mem;
        int ret;
        struct omap_mbox **list, *mbox, *mboxblk;
        struct omap_mbox_pdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
-       struct omap_mbox_dev_info *info;
+       struct omap_mbox_dev_info *info = NULL;
+       struct omap_mbox_fifo_info *finfo, *finfoblk;
        struct omap_mbox_device *mdev;
        struct omap_mbox_fifo *fifo;
-       u32 intr_type;
+       struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
+       struct device_node *child;
+       const struct of_device_id *match;
+       u32 intr_type, info_count;
+       u32 num_users, num_fifos;
+       u32 tmp[3];
        u32 l;
        int i;

-       if (!pdata || !pdata->info_cnt || !pdata->info) {
+       if (!node && (!pdata || !pdata->info_cnt || !pdata->info)) {
                pr_err("%s: platform not supported\n", __func__);
                return -ENODEV;
        }

+       if (node) {

I noticed here you are using

    if (node)
        /* DT stuff goes here */
    else
        /* non-DT stuff goes here */

but below the logic is reversed.

quoted

+               match = of_match_device(omap_mailbox_of_match, &pdev->dev);
+               if (!match)
+                       return -ENODEV;
+               intr_type = (u32)match->data;
+
+               if (of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,mbox-num-users",
+                                        &num_users))
+                       return -ENODEV;
+
+               if (of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,mbox-num-fifos",
+                                        &num_fifos))
+                       return -ENODEV;
+
+               info_count = of_get_available_child_count(node);
+               if (!info_count) {
+                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no available mbox devices found\n");
+                       return -ENODEV;
+               }
+       } else { /* non-DT device creation */
+               info_count = pdata->info_cnt;
+               info = pdata->info;
+               intr_type = pdata->intr_type;
+               num_users = pdata->num_users;
+               num_fifos = pdata->num_fifos;
+       }
+
+       finfoblk = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, info_count * sizeof(*finfoblk),
+                               GFP_KERNEL);
+       if (!finfoblk)
+               return -ENOMEM;
+
+       finfo = finfoblk;
+       child = NULL;
+       for (i = 0; i < info_count; i++, finfo++) {
+               if (!node) {

Here it's
    if (!node)
        /* non-DT stuff */
    else
        /* DT stuff */

I think the "if (node) ..." version is a bit cleaner. Besides it's
nice if code is consistent. Do you mind changing the if statement here
so it matches the logic used above?

No, not at all, I will fix this up in the next version. I have to revise
the framework adaptation patches anyway (remove tidspbridge changes as
that driver is getting deleted and add a missing of_node_put).

Do you prefer that I split up this series between DT conversion and
framework adaptation or good with posting all the patches together? If
latter, I will refresh it once the v9 version of the framework comes out.

regards
Suman

quoted

+                       finfo->tx_id = info->tx_id;
+                       finfo->rx_id = info->rx_id;
+                       finfo->tx_usr = info->usr_id;
+                       finfo->tx_irq = info->irq_id;
+                       finfo->rx_usr = info->usr_id;
+                       finfo->rx_irq = info->irq_id;
+                       finfo->name = info->name;
+                       info++;
+               } else {
+                       child = of_get_next_available_child(node, child);
+                       ret = of_property_read_u32_array(child, "ti,mbox-tx",
+                                                        tmp, ARRAY_SIZE(tmp));
+                       if (ret)
+                               return ret;
+                       finfo->tx_id = tmp[0];
+                       finfo->tx_irq = tmp[1];
+                       finfo->tx_usr = tmp[2];
+
+                       ret = of_property_read_u32_array(child, "ti,mbox-rx",
+                                                        tmp, ARRAY_SIZE(tmp));
+                       if (ret)
+                               return ret;
+                       finfo->rx_id = tmp[0];
+                       finfo->rx_irq = tmp[1];
+                       finfo->rx_usr = tmp[2];
+
+                       finfo->name = child->name;
+               }
+               if (finfo->tx_id >= num_fifos || finfo->rx_id >= num_fifos ||
+                   finfo->tx_usr >= num_users || finfo->rx_usr >= num_users)
+                       return -EINVAL;
+       }
+