Dear Yuvaraj,
On 08/26/2013 06:20 PM, Yuvaraj Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hi Yuvaraj,
>>
>> On 08/23/2013 08:15 PM, Yuvaraj Kumar C D wrote:
>>> Currently platform specific private data initialisation is done by
>>> dw_mci_exynos_priv_init and dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt.As we already have
>>> separate platform specific device tree parser dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt,
>>> move the dw_mci_exynos_priv_init code to dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt.
>>> We can use the dw_mci_exynos_priv_init to do some actual platform
>>> specific initialisation of SMU and etc.
>>>
>>> changes since V1: none
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj...@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>>> b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>>> index 9990f98..19c845b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c
>>> @@ -72,22 +72,8 @@ static struct dw_mci_exynos_compatible {
>>>
>>> static int dw_mci_exynos_priv_init(struct dw_mci *host)
>>> {
>>> - struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv;
>>> - int idx;
>>> -
>>> - priv = devm_kzalloc(host->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (!priv) {
>>> - dev_err(host->dev, "mem alloc failed for private data\n");
>>> - return -ENOMEM;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_compat); idx++) {
>>> - if (of_device_is_compatible(host->dev->of_node,
>>> - exynos_compat[idx].compatible))
>>> - priv->ctrl_type = exynos_compat[idx].ctrl_type;
>>> - }
>>> + struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
>>>
>>> - host->priv = priv;
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -177,12 +163,24 @@ static void dw_mci_exynos_set_ios(struct dw_mci
>>> *host, struct mmc_ios *ios)
>>>
>>> static int dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt(struct dw_mci *host)
>>> {
>>> - struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
>>> + struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv;
>>> struct device_node *np = host->dev->of_node;
>>> u32 timing[2];
>>> u32 div = 0;
>>> + int idx;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(host->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!priv) {
>>> + dev_err(host->dev, "mem alloc failed for private data\n");
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_compat); idx++) {
>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np,
>>> exynos_compat[idx].compatible))
>>> + priv->ctrl_type = exynos_compat[idx].ctrl_type;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> of_property_read_u32(np, "samsung,dw-mshc-ciu-div", &div);
>>> priv->ciu_div = div;
>>>
>>> @@ -199,6 +197,7 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt(struct dw_mci *host)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> priv->ddr_timing = SDMMC_CLKSEL_TIMING(timing[0], timing[1], div);
>>> + host->priv = priv;
>>
>> I'm not sure whether my thinking is right or not.
>> if host->pdata is present, then dw_mci_parse_dt() didn't called at
>> dw_mci_probe.
> Yes, you are right.
>> then how host->priv set to priv?
> Earlier host->priv set to priv in both non-DT and DT case.True, with
> this patch it does it only in DT case.
> Is there any platform/board which still uses dw_mmc and its platform
> extension driver with non DT case?
You're right. i didn't see the extension driver with non DT-case?
Then we can also modify the host->pdata into dw_mci_probe().
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
> I found a reference of non-DT case where host->pdata is present in
> dw_mmc-pci.c driver but does not
> use platform extension driver (exynos/socfpga).
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Jaehoon Chung
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
