ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

PATCH New Daniel Mack 2 participants 8 messages Aug 13, 2014 – Aug 25, 2014

Subsystems (3)

Arm (32-bit) Arm sub-architectures PXA2xx/PXA3xx support

lore

Share & tools

lore

Daniel Mack

author

2014-08-13 19:59 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.

Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -0

index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
 	{ "pxa25x-ssp",		PXA25x_SSP },
 	{ "pxa25x-nssp",	PXA25x_NSSP },
 	{ "pxa27x-ssp",		PXA27x_SSP },
+	{ "pxa3xx-ssp",		PXA3xx_SSP },
 	{ "pxa168-ssp",		PXA168_SSP },
 	{ "pxa910-ssp",		PXA910_SSP },
 	{ },

Signature · 1 line

2.0.4

Daniel Mack

author

2014-08-13 19:59 UTC #1 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 ARM: pxa3xx: provide specific platform_devices for all ssp ports

Currently, devices for SSP ports 1, 2 and 3 are registered as compatible devices to pxa27x-ssp. While the actual IP core is comparable, there are some subtle differences which users of the SSP ports address by looking at the 'type' field.

By registering devices of type 'pxa27x-ssp', this 'type' field is incorrectly set to PXA27x_SSP which confuses the users.

To fix this, provide specific ssp port plaform devices which use 'pxa3xx-ssp' as driver name, an instantiate them from pxa3xx.c.

Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.h |  3 +++
 arch/arm/mach-pxa/pxa3xx.c  | 14 +++++++-------
 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.c +40 -2

index 78b7181..d1d8ea0 100644
@@ -1099,9 +1099,47 @@ static struct resource pxa3xx_resource_ssp4[] = {
 	},
 };
 
+/*
+ * PXA3xx SSP is basically equivalent to PXA27x.
+ * However, we need to register the device by the correct name in order to
+ * make the driver set the correct internal type, hence we provide specific
+ * platform_devices for each of them.
+ */
+struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp1 = {
+	.name		= "pxa3xx-ssp",
+	.id		= 0,
+	.dev		= {
+		.dma_mask = &pxa27x_ssp1_dma_mask,
+		.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
+	},
+	.resource	= pxa27x_resource_ssp1,
+	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(pxa27x_resource_ssp1),
+};
+
+struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp2 = {
+	.name		= "pxa3xx-ssp",
+	.id		= 1,
+	.dev		= {
+		.dma_mask = &pxa27x_ssp2_dma_mask,
+		.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
+	},
+	.resource	= pxa27x_resource_ssp2,
+	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(pxa27x_resource_ssp2),
+};
+
+struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp3 = {
+	.name		= "pxa3xx-ssp",
+	.id		= 2,
+	.dev		= {
+		.dma_mask = &pxa27x_ssp3_dma_mask,
+		.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
+	},
+	.resource	= pxa27x_resource_ssp3,
+	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(pxa27x_resource_ssp3),
+};
+
 struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp4 = {
-	/* PXA3xx SSP is basically equivalent to PXA27x */
-	.name		= "pxa27x-ssp",
+	.name		= "pxa3xx-ssp",
 	.id		= 3,
 	.dev		= {
 		.dma_mask = &pxa3xx_ssp4_dma_mask,

arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.h +3 -0

index 19906c9..298caea 100644
@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ extern struct platform_device pxa25x_device_assp;
 extern struct platform_device pxa27x_device_ssp1;
 extern struct platform_device pxa27x_device_ssp2;
 extern struct platform_device pxa27x_device_ssp3;
+extern struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp1;
+extern struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp2;
+extern struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp3;
 extern struct platform_device pxa3xx_device_ssp4;
 
 extern struct platform_device pxa25x_device_pwm0;

arch/arm/mach-pxa/pxa3xx.c +7 -7

index 7675a5d..0c20bcf 100644
@@ -84,10 +84,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup pxa3xx_clkregs[] = {
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_usbh, "pxa27x-ohci", NULL),
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_u2d, "pxa3xx-u2d", NULL),
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_keypad, "pxa27x-keypad", NULL),
-	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp1, "pxa27x-ssp.0", NULL),
-	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp2, "pxa27x-ssp.1", NULL),
-	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp3, "pxa27x-ssp.2", NULL),
-	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp4, "pxa27x-ssp.3", NULL),
+	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp1, "pxa3xx-ssp.0", NULL),
+	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp2, "pxa3xx-ssp.1", NULL),
+	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp3, "pxa3xx-ssp.2", NULL),
+	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_ssp4, "pxa3xx-ssp.3", NULL),
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_pwm0, "pxa27x-pwm.0", NULL),
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_pwm1, "pxa27x-pwm.1", NULL),
 	INIT_CLKREG(&clk_pxa3xx_mmc1, "pxa2xx-mci.0", NULL),

@@ -456,9 +456,9 @@ static struct platform_device *devices[] __initdata = {
 	&pxa_device_asoc_platform,
 	&sa1100_device_rtc,
 	&pxa_device_rtc,
-	&pxa27x_device_ssp1,
-	&pxa27x_device_ssp2,
-	&pxa27x_device_ssp3,
+	&pxa3xx_device_ssp1,
+	&pxa3xx_device_ssp2,
+	&pxa3xx_device_ssp3,
 	&pxa3xx_device_ssp4,
 	&pxa27x_device_pwm0,
 	&pxa27x_device_pwm1,

Signature · 1 line

2.0.4

Haojian Zhuang

maintainer

2014-08-14 02:08 UTC #2 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

In reply to Daniel Mack

Quoted 20 lines · Daniel Mack

Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.

Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -1

index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
        { "pxa25x-ssp",         PXA25x_SSP },
        { "pxa25x-nssp",        PXA25x_NSSP },
        { "pxa27x-ssp",         PXA27x_SSP },
+       { "pxa3xx-ssp",         PXA3xx_SSP },
        { "pxa168-ssp",         PXA168_SSP },
        { "pxa910-ssp",         PXA910_SSP },
        { },
--

Quoted 2 lines

2.0.4

I don't agree on this. SSP1,SSP2,SSP3 on pxa3xx are same with pxa27x. So we reuse the name.
For the new SSP4, we create pxa3xx_device_ssp4.

We just want to reuse these code.

Regards
Haojian

Daniel Mack

author

2014-08-14 08:35 UTC #3 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

Hi Haojian,

Quoted 17 lines · Haojian Zhuang

Quoted 16 lines · Daniel Mack

Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.

Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -0

index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
        { "pxa25x-ssp",         PXA25x_SSP },
        { "pxa25x-nssp",        PXA25x_NSSP },
        { "pxa27x-ssp",         PXA27x_SSP },
+       { "pxa3xx-ssp",         PXA3xx_SSP },

Quoted 8 lines

arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
Quoted 4 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +0 -1
        { "pxa168-ssp",         PXA168_SSP },
        { "pxa910-ssp",         PXA910_SSP },
        { },
--
I don't agree on this. SSP1,SSP2,SSP3 on pxa3xx are same with pxa27x. So we reuse the name.
For the new SSP4, we create pxa3xx_device_ssp4.

Well, the problem is that the code in sound/soc/pxa/pxa-ssp.c is full of checks like "ssp->type == PXA3xx_SSP", but unless the devices are instantiated via DT, this value is never set appropriately, not even for ssp4.

That's a regression caused by 972a55b62 ("ASoC: fix pxa-ssp compiling issue under mach-mmp"), btw, that added the PXA3xx_SSP enum value but forgot to make sure it is actually used.

Hence, this commit could even get a stable tag for 3.5+.

Thanks,
Daniel

Haojian Zhuang

maintainer

2014-08-15 08:33 UTC #4 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

Quoted 34 lines · Daniel Mack

Hi Haojian,
Quoted 17 lines · Haojian Zhuang
Quoted 16 lines · Daniel Mack
Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.
Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -0
index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
        { "pxa25x-ssp",         PXA25x_SSP },
        { "pxa25x-nssp",        PXA25x_NSSP },
        { "pxa27x-ssp",         PXA27x_SSP },
+       { "pxa3xx-ssp",         PXA3xx_SSP },
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
Quoted 4 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +0 -1
        { "pxa168-ssp",         PXA168_SSP },
        { "pxa910-ssp",         PXA910_SSP },
        { },
--
I don't agree on this. SSP1,SSP2,SSP3 on pxa3xx are same with pxa27x. So we reuse the name.
For the new SSP4, we create pxa3xx_device_ssp4.
Well, the problem is that the code in sound/soc/pxa/pxa-ssp.c is full of checks like "ssp->type == PXA3xx_SSP", but unless the devices are instantiated via DT, this value is never set appropriately, not even for ssp4.

Quoted 7 lines

That's a regression caused by 972a55b62 ("ASoC: fix pxa-ssp compiling issue under mach-mmp"), btw, that added the PXA3xx_SSP enum value but forgot to make sure it is actually used.
Hence, this commit could even get a stable tag for 3.5+.

Yes, you're right. We should append this string.

Daniel Mack

author

2014-08-15 08:41 UTC #5 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

Quoted 10 lines · Haojian Zhuang

Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Mack
That's a regression caused by 972a55b62 ("ASoC: fix pxa-ssp compiling issue under mach-mmp"), btw, that added the PXA3xx_SSP enum value but forgot to make sure it is actually used.
Hence, this commit could even get a stable tag for 3.5+.
Yes, you're right. We should append this string.

The stable@ tag you mean? Well, OTOH, it went unnoticed since 3.5, so we can as well just apply it for 3.17 :)

Thanks,
Daniel

Daniel Mack

author

2014-08-20 08:32 UTC #6 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

In reply to Haojian Zhuang

Quoted 35 lines · Haojian Zhuang

Quoted 34 lines · Daniel Mack
Hi Haojian,
Quoted 17 lines · Haojian Zhuang
Quoted 16 lines · Daniel Mack
Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.
Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -0
index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
        { "pxa25x-ssp",         PXA25x_SSP },
        { "pxa25x-nssp",        PXA25x_NSSP },
        { "pxa27x-ssp",         PXA27x_SSP },
+       { "pxa3xx-ssp",         PXA3xx_SSP },
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
Quoted 4 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +0 -1
        { "pxa168-ssp",         PXA168_SSP },
        { "pxa910-ssp",         PXA910_SSP },
        { },
--
I don't agree on this. SSP1,SSP2,SSP3 on pxa3xx are same with pxa27x. So we reuse the name.
For the new SSP4, we create pxa3xx_device_ssp4.
Well, the problem is that the code in sound/soc/pxa/pxa-ssp.c is full of checks like "ssp->type == PXA3xx_SSP", but unless the devices are instantiated via DT, this value is never set appropriately, not even for ssp4.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 7 lines
That's a regression caused by 972a55b62 ("ASoC: fix pxa-ssp compiling issue under mach-mmp"), btw, that added the PXA3xx_SSP enum value but forgot to make sure it is actually used.
Hence, this commit could even get a stable tag for 3.5+.
Yes, you're right. We should append this string.

Would this go through your tree or will Arnd or Eric pick those patches?

Thanks,
Daniel

Haojian Zhuang

maintainer

2014-08-25 07:18 UTC #7 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 ARM: pxa: ssp: provide platform_device_id for PXA3xx

Quoted 43 lines · Daniel Mack

Quoted 42 lines · Haojian Zhuang
Quoted 41 lines · Daniel Mack
Hi Haojian,
Quoted 17 lines · Haojian Zhuang
Quoted 16 lines · Daniel Mack
Provide an explicit match string for PXA3xx SSP ports.
Signed-off-by Daniel Mack <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +1 -0
index 3ea0290..1f5ee17 100644
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
        { "pxa25x-ssp",         PXA25x_SSP },
        { "pxa25x-nssp",        PXA25x_NSSP },
        { "pxa27x-ssp",         PXA27x_SSP },
+       { "pxa3xx-ssp",         PXA3xx_SSP },
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c static const struct platform_device_id ssp_id_table[] = {
Quoted 4 lines
arch/arm/plat-pxa/ssp.c +0 -1
        { "pxa168-ssp",         PXA168_SSP },
        { "pxa910-ssp",         PXA910_SSP },
        { },
--
I don't agree on this. SSP1,SSP2,SSP3 on pxa3xx are same with pxa27x. So we reuse the name.
For the new SSP4, we create pxa3xx_device_ssp4.
Well, the problem is that the code in sound/soc/pxa/pxa-ssp.c is full of checks like "ssp->type == PXA3xx_SSP", but unless the devices are instantiated via DT, this value is never set appropriately, not even for ssp4.
That's a regression caused by 972a55b62 ("ASoC: fix pxa-ssp compiling issue under mach-mmp"), btw, that added the PXA3xx_SSP enum value but forgot to make sure it is actually used.
Hence, this commit could even get a stable tag for 3.5+.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 1 line
Yes, you're right. We should append this string.
Would this go through your tree or will Arnd or Eric pick those patches?
Thanks,
Daniel

Sure, I'll send the pull request to Arnd.

Regards
Haojian