| Message ID | 20230812090418.75020-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio: dac: ti-dac5571: Use i2c_get_match_data() | expand |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > Replace device_get_match_data() and id lookup for retrieving match data > by i2c_get_match_data() by converting enum->pointer for data in the > match table. ... > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, I would reorder them a bit. {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, Same for I2C ID table.
Hi Andy, On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > Replace device_get_match_data() and id lookup for retrieving match data > > by i2c_get_match_data() by converting enum->pointer for data in the > > match table. > > ... > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > I would reorder them a bit. Which is safe in this particular case... But not in general, as there might be fall-back compatible values. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:29:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > > Replace device_get_match_data() and id lookup for retrieving match data > > > by i2c_get_match_data() by converting enum->pointer for data in the > > > match table. ... > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > I would reorder them a bit. > > Which is safe in this particular case... > But not in general, as there might be fall-back compatible values. You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice minefield! This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely.
Hi Andy, On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:29:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > > > Replace device_get_match_data() and id lookup for retrieving match data > > > > by i2c_get_match_data() by converting enum->pointer for data in the > > > > match table. > > ... > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > > > I would reorder them a bit. > > > > Which is safe in this particular case... > > But not in general, as there might be fall-back compatible values. > > You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice minefield! > This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely. Seems like it is, cfr. the scoring system in drivers/of/base.c __of_device_is_compatible(). Sorry for the confusion. I still tend to order them in match tables though, from most-specific to least-specific. Note that soc_device_match() (which is used less, fortunately) does not have such a scoring system, so order does matter there. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:16:00AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:29:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: ... > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > > > > > I would reorder them a bit. > > > > > > Which is safe in this particular case... > > > But not in general, as there might be fall-back compatible values. > > > > You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice minefield! > > This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely. > > Seems like it is, cfr. the scoring system in drivers/of/base.c > __of_device_is_compatible(). Sorry for the confusion. > > I still tend to order them in match tables though, from most-specific > to least-specific. > > Note that soc_device_match() (which is used less, fortunately) does > not have such a scoring system, so order does matter there. Should be fixed there, because it's a big downside of OF.
Hi Andy, On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:22 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:16:00AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:29:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, > > > > > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, > > > > > > > > > > I would reorder them a bit. > > > > > > > > Which is safe in this particular case... > > > > But not in general, as there might be fall-back compatible values. > > > > > > You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice minefield! > > > This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely. > > > > Seems like it is, cfr. the scoring system in drivers/of/base.c > > __of_device_is_compatible(). Sorry for the confusion. > > > > I still tend to order them in match tables though, from most-specific > > to least-specific. > > > > Note that soc_device_match() (which is used less, fortunately) does > > not have such a scoring system, so order does matter there. > > Should be fixed there, because it's a big downside of OF. Agreed. Note that it is unrelated to OF. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c index bab11b9adc25..2bb3f76569ee 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c @@ -313,7 +313,6 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client) const struct dac5571_spec *spec; struct dac5571_data *data; struct iio_dev *indio_dev; - enum chip_id chip_id; int ret, i; indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data)); @@ -329,12 +328,7 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client) indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE; indio_dev->channels = dac5571_channels; - if (dev_fwnode(dev)) - chip_id = (uintptr_t)device_get_match_data(dev); - else - chip_id = id->driver_data; - - spec = &dac5571_spec[chip_id]; + spec = i2c_get_match_data(client); indio_dev->num_channels = spec->num_channels; data->spec = spec; @@ -392,31 +386,31 @@ static void dac5571_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c) } static const struct of_device_id dac5571_of_id[] = { - {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = (void *)single_8bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = (void *)single_10bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = (void *)single_12bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = (void *)single_12bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = &dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, + {.compatible = "ti,dac121c081", .data = &dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dac5571_of_id); static const struct i2c_device_id dac5571_id[] = { - {"dac5571", single_8bit}, - {"dac6571", single_10bit}, - {"dac7571", single_12bit}, - {"dac5574", quad_8bit}, - {"dac6574", quad_10bit}, - {"dac7574", quad_12bit}, - {"dac5573", quad_8bit}, - {"dac6573", quad_10bit}, - {"dac7573", quad_12bit}, - {"dac121c081", single_12bit}, + {"dac5571", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[single_8bit] }, + {"dac6571", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[single_10bit] }, + {"dac7571", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, + {"dac5574", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, + {"dac6574", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, + {"dac7574", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, + {"dac5573", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_8bit] }, + {"dac6573", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_10bit] }, + {"dac7573", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[quad_12bit] }, + {"dac121c081", (kernel_ulong_t)&dac5571_spec[single_12bit] }, {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, dac5571_id);
Replace device_get_match_data() and id lookup for retrieving match data by i2c_get_match_data() by converting enum->pointer for data in the match table. Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> --- drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)