Implement SoC bus support for Vybrid
Subsystems (2)
v4 cover Implement SoC bus support for Vybrid
Hello,
This patchset implements SoC bus support for Freescale Vybrid platform, implementing the following
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-soc
and is the third revision.
Version 3 of the patchset can be found here
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg420847.html
Version 2 of the patchset can be found here
http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg80654.html
Version 1 of the patchset can be found here
http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg80257.html
The RFC version can be found here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/11/13
Changes since v3:
- Instead of using the syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible function use a phandle in the device tree along with offsets specified in this phandle node and then read the offset along with the device node in the driver for reading from the required region.
Changes since v2:
- Implement the SoC bus code as a driver in drivers/soc by registering with fsl,mscm-cpucfg as per Arnd's feedback
Changes since v1:
- Sort the headers in alphabetical order
Changes since RFC:
- Use a DT entry for the ROM area while specifying it as syscon.
One question I had in comparison to the previous implementation is, the previous patch also resulted in exposing the DT devices in the subdirectory soc under soc0/ which happened due to the of_platform_populate call. With the current implementation this does not happen anymore. I am not too thorough on all this, but I guess that of_platform_populate needs to be called early with the right arguments. With the current implementation is it possible to get that soc0/soc directory exposed in any way? Am I missing something trivial in all this?
I guess we are OK, even if the above cannot be achived with the current implementation. The main aim of this exercise was to expose the SoC specific attributes. However it did be nice, if it could still be done. Perhaps that part of the implementation can go in later in a separate patch.
Arnd are you ok with this implementation?
Notes same since v1 and v2:
Currently the required information is more or less read across the whole SoC, but I guess we cannot change that since these are the locations with the required information.
There seem to be three options for the revision field:
- ROM revision (see https://community.freescale.com/docs/DOC-94802)
- ANADIG revision (ANADIG_DIGIPROC, as used for the i.MX SoC's)
- OCOTP revision
Some numbers:
Colibri VF61 1.1A (2N02G)
- 0x00000013
- 0x00610000
- 0x01000000
- 0x410000c8
Colibri VF61 V1.0B (1N02G)
- 0x00000011
- 0x00610000
- 0x01000000
- 0x410000c8
Colibri VF61 V1.0A (which is actually a VF600 SoC, no L2 cache, since that was the only one we could buy back then, 1N02G printed on it)
- 0x00000011
- 0x00610000
- 0x01000000
- none...
Colibri VF50 V1.0A (1N02G)
- 0x00000011
- 0x00610000
- 0x01000000
- none...
Vybrid Tower Rev J (1N02G)
- 0x00000011
- 0x00610000
- 0x01000000
- 0x410000c8
The ROM revision differs the most, so we would like to go with the revision information from the ROM register 0x80.
Sanchayan Maity (2):
ARM: dts: vfxxx: Add OCOTP and OCROM nodes
soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi | 12 ++++ drivers/soc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/soc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig | 9 +++ drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c | 168 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 192 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c
Signature · 1 line
2.4.1
PATCH v4 1/2 ARM: dts: vfxxx: Add OCOTP and OCROM nodes
Add a device tree node for the On-Chip One Time Programmable Controller (OCOTP) and the On-Chip ROM.
--- arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi +12 -0
@@ -56,6 +56,13 @@ compatible = "simple-bus"; interrupt-parent = <&mscm_ir>; ranges; + ocotp-cfg = <&ocotp 0x410 0x420>; + rom-revision = <&ocrom 0x80>; + + ocrom: ocrom { + compatible = "fsl,vf610-ocrom", "syscon"; + reg = <0x00000000 0x18000>; + }; aips0: aips-bus at 40000000 { compatible = "fsl,aips-bus", "simple-bus";
@@ -403,6 +410,11 @@ status = "disabled"; }; + ocotp: ocotp at 400a5000 { + compatible = "fsl,vf610-ocotp", "syscon"; + reg = <0x400a5000 0x1000>; + }; + snvs0: snvs at 400a7000 { compatible = "fsl,sec-v4.0-mon", "simple-bus"; #address-cells = <1>;
Signature · 1 line
2.4.1
PATCH v4 2/2 soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
In reply to Sanchayan MaityThis adds a SoC driver to be used by the Freescale Vybrid SoC's. We create the "fsl" directory for holding the different Freescale designs. Driver utilises syscon to get the various register values needed. After this sysfs exposes some SoC specific properties as below:
Quoted 2 lines
cd
/sys/devices/soc0
ls
family machine power revision soc_id subsystem uevent
Quoted 1 line
cat family
Freescale Vybrid VF610
Quoted 1 line
cat machine
Freescale Vybrid
Quoted 1 line
cat revision
00000013
Quoted 1 line
cat
soc_id
df6472a60c1c39d4
--- drivers/soc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/soc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig | 9 +++ drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 180 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c
drivers/soc/Kconfig +1 -0
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ menu "SOC (System On Chip) specific Drivers" +source "drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/mediatek/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/ti/Kconfig"
drivers/soc/Makefile +1 -0
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ # Makefile for the Linux Kernel SOC specific device drivers. # +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += fsl/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MEDIATEK) += mediatek/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += qcom/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) += tegra/
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +9 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +# +# Freescale SoC drivers + +config SOC_VF610 + bool "SoC bus device for the Freescale Vybrid platform" + select SOC_BUS + help + Include support for the SoC bus on the Freescale Vybrid platform + providing some sysfs information about the module variant.
drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile new file +1 -0
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += soc-vf610.o
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +168 -0
168 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.4.1
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig line 9
Quoted 10 lines · Sanchayan Maity
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +6
-0+config SOC_VF610 + bool "SoC bus device for the Freescale Vybrid platform" + select SOC_BUS + help + Include support for the SoC bus on the Freescale Vybrid platform + providing some sysfs information about the module variant.
(That review comment is courtesy of git.)
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 165
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile new file +1
-0+obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += soc-vf610.odrivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE (of, vf610_soc_bus_match); +module_platform_driver (vf610_soc_driver);
(The series starting at https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/10/131 would allow to use builtin_platform_driver() for built-in only code.)
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 168
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DESCRIPTION ("Freescale VF610 SoC bus driver" ); +MODULE_LICENSE ("GPL v2" );
I think soc-vf610.o can only be built-in. But its code contains a few module specific macros. Was it perhaps intended for SOC_VF610 to be tristate?
Paul Bolle
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 2 lines · Sanchayan Maity
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +0
-0
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig line 9
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +6
-0+config SOC_VF610 + bool "SoC bus device for the Freescale Vybrid platform" + select SOC_BUS + help + Include support for the SoC bus on the Freescale Vybrid platform + providing some sysfs information about the module variant.(That review comment is courtesy of git.)
Will fix it.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile new file +1
-0+obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += soc-vf610.odrivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +0
-0
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 165
Quoted 3 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE (of, vf610_soc_bus_match); +module_platform_driver (vf610_soc_driver);(The series starting at https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/10/131 would allow to use
builtin_platform_driver()for built-in only code.)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am subscribed to the mailing list however this skipped me.
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 168
Quoted 3 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DESCRIPTION ("Freescale VF610 SoC bus driver" ); +MODULE_LICENSE ("GPL v2" );I think soc-vf610.o can only be built-in. But its code contains a few module specific macros. Was it perhaps intended for
SOC_VF610to be tristate?
I too think that should be built-in. Did not have an intention of making it tristate, however while using other drivers as references, the perhaps unneccessary stuff crept in.
The MODULE_* references can be removed along with the corresponding header file. However that series has not been merged yet, so I can't use builtin_* yet?
@Arnd
Are you ok with the patch in general? I can take care of the above changes and send a new version. And once the builtin_driver stuff gets merged, I can send a minor patch to change this module one to builtin?
Regards,
Sanchayan.
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
Quoted 10 lines · maitysanchayan at gmail.com
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+module_platform_driver(vf610_soc_driver);
(The series starting at https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/10/131 would allow to use
builtin_platform_driver()for built-in only code.)Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am subscribed to the mailing list however this skipped me.
However that series has not been merged yet, so I can't use builtin_* yet?
Correct.
If that series get merged, which is not certain at all, you might consider changing this. Probably no one will notice if you don't.
Paul Bolle
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
In reply to [email protected]Hi,
Am 27.05.2015 um 15:07 schrieb maitysanchayan at gmail.com:
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 11 lines · Sanchayan Maity
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +6
-0+config SOC_VF610 + bool "SoC bus device for the Freescale Vybrid platform" + select SOC_BUS + help + Include support for the SoC bus on the Freescale Vybrid platform + providing some sysfs information about the module variant.
[...]
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 165
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile new file +1
-0+obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += soc-vf610.odrivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE (of, vf610_soc_bus_match); +module_platform_driver (vf610_soc_driver);(The series starting at https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/10/131 would allow to use
builtin_platform_driver()for built-in only code.)
[...]
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 168
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+MODULE_DESCRIPTION ("Freescale VF610 SoC bus driver" ); +MODULE_LICENSE ("GPL v2" );I think soc-vf610.o can only be built-in. But its code contains a few module specific macros. Was it perhaps intended for
SOC_VF610to be tristate?I too think that should be built-in.
Why? For a generic distro kernel it'd be unfortunate to not allow putting such a driver into an initrd, if needed early, or into the rootfs otherwise.
Regards,
Andreas
Quoted 7 lines
Did not have an intention of making
it tristate, however while using other drivers as references, the perhaps unneccessary stuff crept in.The MODULE_* references can be removed along with the corresponding header file. However that series has not been merged yet, so I can't use builtin_* yet?
[snip]
Signature · 3 lines
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
In reply to Sanchayan MaityQuoted 20 lines · Sanchayan Maity
This adds a SoC driver to be used by the Freescale Vybrid SoC's. We create the "fsl" directory for holding the different Freescale designs. Driver utilises syscon to get the various register values needed. After this sysfs exposes some SoC specific properties as below:
Quoted 2 lines
cd
/sys/devices/soc0
lsfamily machine power revision
soc_idsubsystem ueventQuoted 1 line
cat family
Freescale Vybrid VF610
Quoted 1 line
cat machine
Freescale Vybrid
Quoted 1 line
cat revision
00000013
Quoted 1 line
cat
soc_id
df6472a60c1c39d4Signed-off-by Sanchayan Maity <[email protected]>---
[...]
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 26
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +2
-0+static struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr; +static struct soc_device *soc_dev;
Now that this is a proper platform device consider putting these in a struct and allocated it in probe to get rid of the global variables.
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +5
-0+static int vf610_soc_probe (struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +struct regmap *ocotp_regmap, *mscm_regmap, *rom_regmap; +struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; +struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
[...]
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +7
-0+ soc_dev_attr =kzalloc (sizeof (*soc_dev_attr),GFP_KERNEL ); +if (!soc_dev_attr) +return -ENOMEM ; + + soc_dev_attr->machine =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"Freescale Vybrid" ); + soc_dev_attr->soc_id =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"%016llx" , soc_id); + soc_dev_attr->family = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "Freescale Vybrid VF%s",
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 127
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +10
-0+ soc_type); + soc_dev_attr->revision =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"%08x" , rom_rev); + + soc_dev =soc_device_register (soc_dev_attr); +if (IS_ERR (soc_dev)) { +kfree (soc_dev_attr->revision); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->family); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->soc_id); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->machine); +kfree (soc_dev_attr);
Since you now have a device pointer you can now uses all the devm_* functions to allocate your memory.
There is also a devm_kasprintf function.
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +4
-0+return -ENODEV ; + } + +return 0 ;
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 141
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +10
-0+} + +static int vf610_soc_remove (struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +if (soc_dev_attr) { +kfree (soc_dev_attr->revision); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->family); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->soc_id); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->machine); +kfree (soc_dev_attr);
With devm_* you can remove this stuff.
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 148
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +7
-0+ } + +if (soc_dev) +soc_device_unregister (soc_dev); + +return 0 ; +}
regards,
Joachim Eastwood
Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: Add driver for Freescale Vybrid Platform
In reply to Sanchayan MaityQuoted 223 lines · Sanchayan Maity
This adds a SoC driver to be used by the Freescale Vybrid SoC's. We create the "fsl" directory for holding the different Freescale designs. Driver utilises syscon to get the various register values needed. After this sysfs exposes some SoC specific properties as below:
Quoted 2 lines
cd
/sys/devices/soc0
lsfamily machine power revision
soc_idsubsystem ueventQuoted 1 line
cat family
Freescale Vybrid VF610
Quoted 1 line
cat machine
Freescale Vybrid
Quoted 1 line
cat revision
00000013
Quoted 1 line
cat
soc_id
df6472a60c1c39d4Signed-off-by Sanchayan Maity <[email protected]>--- drivers/soc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/soc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig | 9 +++ drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile | 1 + drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 180 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.cdrivers/soc/Kconfig +1
-0@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ menu "SOC (System On Chip) specific Drivers" +source "drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/mediatek/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig" source "drivers/soc/ti/Kconfig"drivers/soc/Makefile +1
-0@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ # Makefile for the Linux Kernel SOC specific device drivers. # +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += fsl/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MEDIATEK) += mediatek/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += qcom/ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) += tegra/drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig new file +9
-0@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +# +# Freescale SoC drivers + +config SOC_VF610 + bool "SoC bus device for the Freescale Vybrid platform" + select SOC_BUS + help + Include support for the SoC bus on the Freescale Vybrid platform + providing some sysfs information about the module variant.drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1 @@ +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_VF610) += soc-vf610.odrivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +141
-0@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ +/* +* Copyright 2015 Toradex AG +* +* Author: Sanchayan Maity <[email protected]> +* +* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2, as +* published by the Free Software Foundation. +* +*/ + +#include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> +#include <linux/regmap.h> +#include <linux/random.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/sys_soc.h> + +#define DRIVER_NAME "vf610-soc-bus" + +#define MSCM_CPxCOUNT_OFFSET 0x0000002C +#define MSCM_CPxCFG1_OFFSET 0x00000014 + +static struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr; +static struct soc_device *soc_dev; + +static int vf610_soc_probe (struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +struct regmap *ocotp_regmap, *mscm_regmap, *rom_regmap; +struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; +struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; +struct device_node *soc_node; +struct of_phandle_args pargs; +char soc_type[] ="xx0" ; +u32 cfg0_offset, cfg1_offset, rom_rev_offset; +u32 soc_id1, soc_id2, rom_rev; +u32 cpxcount, cpxcfg1; +u64 soc_id; +int ret; + + mscm_regmap =syscon_node_to_regmap (node); +if (IS_ERR (mscm_regmap)) { +dev_err (dev,"regmap lookup for mscm failed\n" ); +return PTR_ERR (mscm_regmap); + } + + soc_node =of_find_node_by_path ("/soc" ); + + ret =of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args (soc_node, +"ocotp-cfg" ,2 ,0 , &pargs); +if (ret) { +dev_err (dev,"lookup failed for ocotp-cfg node %d\n" , ret); +return ret; + } + + ocotp_regmap =syscon_node_to_regmap (pargs.np); +if (IS_ERR (ocotp_regmap)) { +of_node_put (pargs.np); +dev_err (dev,"regmap lookup for ocotp failed\n" ); +return PTR_ERR (ocotp_regmap); + } + + cfg0_offset = pargs.args[0 ]; + cfg1_offset = pargs.args[1 ]; +of_node_put (pargs.np); + + ret =of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args (soc_node, +"rom-revision" ,1 ,0 , &pargs); +if (ret) { +dev_err (dev,"lookup failed for rom-revision node %d\n" , ret); +return ret; + } + + rom_regmap =syscon_node_to_regmap (pargs.np); +if (IS_ERR (rom_regmap)) { +of_node_put (pargs.np); +dev_err (dev,"regmap lookup for ocrom failed\n" ); +return PTR_ERR (rom_regmap); + } + + rom_rev_offset = pargs.args[0 ]; +of_node_put (pargs.np); + + ret =regmap_read (ocotp_regmap, cfg0_offset, &soc_id1); +if (ret) +return -ENODEV ; + + ret =regmap_read (ocotp_regmap, cfg1_offset, &soc_id2); +if (ret) +return -ENODEV ; + + soc_id = (u64 ) soc_id1 <<32 | soc_id2; +add_device_randomness (&soc_id,sizeof (soc_id)); + + ret =regmap_read (mscm_regmap, MSCM_CPxCOUNT_OFFSET, &cpxcount); +if (ret) +return -ENODEV ; + + ret =regmap_read (mscm_regmap, MSCM_CPxCFG1_OFFSET, &cpxcfg1); +if (ret) +return -ENODEV ; + + soc_type[0 ] = cpxcount ?'6' :'5' ;/* Dual Core => VF6x0 */ + soc_type[1 ] = cpxcfg1 ?'1' :'0' ;/* L2 Cache => VFx10 */ + + ret =regmap_read (rom_regmap, rom_rev_offset, &rom_rev); +if (ret) +return -ENODEV ; + + soc_dev_attr =kzalloc (sizeof (*soc_dev_attr),GFP_KERNEL ); +if (!soc_dev_attr) +return -ENOMEM ; + + soc_dev_attr->machine =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"Freescale Vybrid" ); + soc_dev_attr->soc_id =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"%016llx" , soc_id); + soc_dev_attr->family =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"Freescale Vybrid VF%s" , + soc_type); + soc_dev_attr->revision =kasprintf (GFP_KERNEL ,"%08x" , rom_rev); + + soc_dev =soc_device_register (soc_dev_attr); +if (IS_ERR (soc_dev)) { +kfree (soc_dev_attr->revision); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->family); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->soc_id); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->machine); +kfree (soc_dev_attr); +return -ENODEV ; + } + +return 0 ; +} + +static int vf610_soc_remove (struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +if (soc_dev_attr) { +kfree (soc_dev_attr->revision); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->family); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->soc_id); +kfree (soc_dev_attr->machine); +kfree (soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c line 151
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/soc/fsl/soc-vf610.c new file +10
-0+ } + +if (soc_dev) +soc_device_unregister (soc_dev); + +return 0 ; +} + +static const struct of_device_id vf610_soc_bus_match[] = { + { .compatible ="fsl,vf610-mscm-cpucfg" , },
IMHO that is a mix and match now. We still bind this driver to a specific device, while we point directly to the registers from the SoC level (in the device tree).
I'm not sure if the suggestion I made in v2 is acceptable: Couldn't we add compatible nodes to the SoC level and bind this driver to the SoC directly? I think if we point to the registers at SoC level, we should also bind this driver to the SoC level. Of course, then we additionally need to point to the mscm-cpucfg register to get the SoC type information.
If we keep this driver bound to "fsl,vf610-mscm-cpucfg", then I think we should also point from this node to the other nodes/registers...
Arnd, where did you meant to put the pointers?
--
Stefan