> The current STMPE I2C probing code does not really match the
> compatible strings - it matches node names happening to give
> the right device name. Instead, let's introduce some real
> compatible matching, more complex, more accurate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/stmpe-i2c.c | 60
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmpe-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/stmpe-i2c.c
> index 0da02e11d58e..8902a600d978 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/stmpe-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmpe-i2c.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> #include "stmpe.h"
>
> static int i2c_reg_read(struct stmpe *stmpe, u8 reg)
> @@ -52,15 +53,71 @@ static struct stmpe_client_info i2c_ci = {
> .write_block = i2c_block_write,
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
Didn't you say that the only platform using this device is DT only? So
why don't we make the driver depend on OF and get rid of this ugly
#ifdeffery?
> +static const struct of_device_id stmpe_of_match[] = {
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe610",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE610,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe801",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE801,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe811",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE811,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe1601",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE1601,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe1801",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE1801,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe2401",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE2401,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "st,stmpe2403",
> + .data = (void *)STMPE2403,
> + },
> + {},
> +};
If none of these stray over 80 chars, I think I'd like to see
of_device_id tables as single line entries (unlike mfd_cell structures
where there can be more than 2 entries, which I like spread out - I
know, double standards right?)
+static const struct of_device_id stmpe_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe610", .data = (void *)STMPE610, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe801", .data = (void *)STMPE801, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe811", .data = (void *)STMPE811, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe1601", .data = (void *)STMPE1601, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe1801", .data = (void *)STMPE1801, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe2401", .data = (void *)STMPE2401, },
+ { .compatible = "st,stmpe2403", .data = (void *)STMPE2403, },
+ {},
+};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stmpe_of_match);
> +
> +int stmpe_i2c_of_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
Erm, static?
> +{
> + const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> +
> + of_id = of_match_device(stmpe_of_match, &i2c->dev);
> + if (!of_id)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + return (int)of_id->data;
> +}
> +#else
> +int stmpe_i2c_of_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static int
> stmpe_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> {
> + int partnum;
> +
> i2c_ci.data = (void *)id;
> i2c_ci.irq = i2c->irq;
> i2c_ci.client = i2c;
> i2c_ci.dev = &i2c->dev;
>
> - return stmpe_probe(&i2c_ci, id->driver_data);
if (IS_DEFINED(OF)) {
> + partnum = stmpe_i2c_of_probe(i2c);
Then you can remove the spare stmpe_i2c_of_probe(), or better still
make the whole driver depend on OF.
> + if (partnum < 0)
> + partnum = id->driver_data;
Should this be able to fail and for us to still carry on?
Or are we then running on an unsupported device?
> + return stmpe_probe(&i2c_ci, partnum);
> }
>
> static int stmpe_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> @@ -89,6 +146,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver stmpe_i2c_driver = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> .pm = &stmpe_dev_pm_ops,
> #endif
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(stmpe_of_match),
> },
> .probe = stmpe_i2c_probe,
> .remove = stmpe_i2c_remove,
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
