Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/exynos: dp: Remove support for unused dptx-phy

From: Vivek Gautam
Date: Wed Nov 12 2014 - 03:25:56 EST

Next message: Joonsoo Kim: "[RFC PATCH 2/5] mm/debug-pagealloc: prepare boottime configurable on/off"
Previous message: Joonsoo Kim: "[RFC PATCH 4/5] stacktrace: support snprint"
In reply to: Jingoo Han: "Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/exynos: dp: Remove support for unused dptx-phy"
Next in thread: Vivek Gautam: "[PATCH v3 1/2] drm/exynos: dp: Remove support for unused dptx-phy"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:24 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>
>> Now that we have moved to generic phy based bindings,
>> we don't need to have any code related to older dptx-phy.
>> Nobody is using this dptx-phy anymore, so removing the
>> same.
>
> Right, older dptx-phy was replaced long time ago.
> However, it was not removed for DT compatibility.
> I think that now these old DT properties can be removed.
>
> I added some comments below.

Thanks Jingoo for reviewing.

>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes from V1:
>> - Reworked error handling in exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata() as commented
>> by Inki.
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 67 ++++++++-----------------------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h | 2 -
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> index cd50ece..206163b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> @@ -1052,28 +1052,14 @@ static int exynos_dp_create_connector(struct exynos_drm_display *display,
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_phy_init(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - if (dp->phy) {
>> + if (dp->phy)
>> phy_power_on(dp->phy);
>> - } else if (dp->phy_addr) {
>> - u32 reg;
>> -
>> - reg = __raw_readl(dp->phy_addr);
>> - reg |= dp->enable_mask;
>> - __raw_writel(reg, dp->phy_addr);
>> - }
>> }
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_phy_exit(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - if (dp->phy) {
>> + if (dp->phy)
>> phy_power_off(dp->phy);
>> - } else if (dp->phy_addr) {
>> - u32 reg;
>> -
>> - reg = __raw_readl(dp->phy_addr);
>> - reg &= ~(dp->enable_mask);
>> - __raw_writel(reg, dp->phy_addr);
>> - }
>> }
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_poweron(struct exynos_drm_display *display)
>> @@ -1212,40 +1198,13 @@ static struct video_info *exynos_dp_dt_parse_pdata(struct device *dev)
>>
>> static int exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - struct device_node *dp_phy_node = of_node_get(dp->dev->of_node);
>> - u32 phy_base;
>> - int ret = 0;
>> -
>> - dp_phy_node = of_find_node_by_name(dp_phy_node, "dptx-phy");
>> - if (!dp_phy_node) {
>> - dp->phy = devm_phy_get(dp->dev, "dp");
>> - return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dp->phy);
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_phy_node, "reg", &phy_base)) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to get reg for dptx-phy\n");
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto err;
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_phy_node, "samsung,enable-mask",
>> - &dp->enable_mask)) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to get enable-mask for dptx-phy\n");
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto err;
>> - }
>> -
>> - dp->phy_addr = ioremap(phy_base, SZ_4);
>> - if (!dp->phy_addr) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to ioremap dp-phy\n");
>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto err;
>> + dp->phy = devm_phy_get(dp->dev, "dp");
>> + if (IS_ERR(dp->phy)) {
>> + dev_err(dp->dev, "no DP phy configured\n");
>> + return PTR_ERR(dp->phy);
>> }
>>
>> -err:
>> - of_node_put(dp_phy_node);
>> -
>> - return ret;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int exynos_dp_dt_parse_panel(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> @@ -1278,8 +1237,16 @@ static int exynos_dp_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master, void *data)
>> return PTR_ERR(dp->video_info);
>>
>> ret = exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata(dp);
>
> In your patch, exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata() calls only devm_phy_get().
> Then, how about calling devm_phy_get() directly and removing
> exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata()? It looks simpler.

Right, makes sense. Will send quick rework for this.
Then you can give your Reviewed-by. ;-)

[snip]

--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:24 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>
>> Now that we have moved to generic phy based bindings,
>> we don't need to have any code related to older dptx-phy.
>> Nobody is using this dptx-phy anymore, so removing the
>> same.
>
> Right, older dptx-phy was replaced long time ago.
> However, it was not removed for DT compatibility.
> I think that now these old DT properties can be removed.
>
> I added some comments below.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes from V1:
>> - Reworked error handling in exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata() as commented
>> by Inki.
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 67 ++++++++-----------------------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h | 2 -
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> index cd50ece..206163b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c
>> @@ -1052,28 +1052,14 @@ static int exynos_dp_create_connector(struct exynos_drm_display *display,
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_phy_init(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - if (dp->phy) {
>> + if (dp->phy)
>> phy_power_on(dp->phy);
>> - } else if (dp->phy_addr) {
>> - u32 reg;
>> -
>> - reg = __raw_readl(dp->phy_addr);
>> - reg |= dp->enable_mask;
>> - __raw_writel(reg, dp->phy_addr);
>> - }
>> }
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_phy_exit(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - if (dp->phy) {
>> + if (dp->phy)
>> phy_power_off(dp->phy);
>> - } else if (dp->phy_addr) {
>> - u32 reg;
>> -
>> - reg = __raw_readl(dp->phy_addr);
>> - reg &= ~(dp->enable_mask);
>> - __raw_writel(reg, dp->phy_addr);
>> - }
>> }
>>
>> static void exynos_dp_poweron(struct exynos_drm_display *display)
>> @@ -1212,40 +1198,13 @@ static struct video_info *exynos_dp_dt_parse_pdata(struct device *dev)
>>
>> static int exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> {
>> - struct device_node *dp_phy_node = of_node_get(dp->dev->of_node);
>> - u32 phy_base;
>> - int ret = 0;
>> -
>> - dp_phy_node = of_find_node_by_name(dp_phy_node, "dptx-phy");
>> - if (!dp_phy_node) {
>> - dp->phy = devm_phy_get(dp->dev, "dp");
>> - return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dp->phy);
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_phy_node, "reg", &phy_base)) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to get reg for dptx-phy\n");
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto err;
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_phy_node, "samsung,enable-mask",
>> - &dp->enable_mask)) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to get enable-mask for dptx-phy\n");
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto err;
>> - }
>> -
>> - dp->phy_addr = ioremap(phy_base, SZ_4);
>> - if (!dp->phy_addr) {
>> - dev_err(dp->dev, "failed to ioremap dp-phy\n");
>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto err;
>> + dp->phy = devm_phy_get(dp->dev, "dp");
>> + if (IS_ERR(dp->phy)) {
>> + dev_err(dp->dev, "no DP phy configured\n");
>> + return PTR_ERR(dp->phy);
>> }
>>
>> -err:
>> - of_node_put(dp_phy_node);
>> -
>> - return ret;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int exynos_dp_dt_parse_panel(struct exynos_dp_device *dp)
>> @@ -1278,8 +1237,16 @@ static int exynos_dp_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master, void *data)
>> return PTR_ERR(dp->video_info);
>>
>> ret = exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata(dp);
>
> In your patch, exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata() calls only devm_phy_get().
> Then, how about calling devm_phy_get() directly and removing
> exynos_dp_dt_parse_phydata()? It looks simpler.
>
> Best regards,
> Jingoo Han
>
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> + if (ret) {
>> + /*
>> + * phy itself is not enabled, so we can move forward
>> + * assigning NULL to phy pointer.
>> + */
>> + if (ret == -ENOSYS || ret == -ENODEV)
>> + dp->phy = NULL;
>> + else
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> if (!dp->panel) {
>> ret = exynos_dp_dt_parse_panel(dp);
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h
>> index a1aee69..6426201 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h
>> @@ -153,8 +153,6 @@ struct exynos_dp_device {
>> struct clk *clock;
>> unsigned int irq;
>> void __iomem *reg_base;
>> - void __iomem *phy_addr;
>> - unsigned int enable_mask;
>>
>> struct video_info *video_info;
>> struct link_train link_train;
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
Best Regards
Vivek Gautam
Samsung R&D Institute, Bangalore
India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Joonsoo Kim: "[RFC PATCH 2/5] mm/debug-pagealloc: prepare boottime configurable on/off"
Previous message: Joonsoo Kim: "[RFC PATCH 4/5] stacktrace: support snprint"
In reply to: Jingoo Han: "Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/exynos: dp: Remove support for unused dptx-phy"
Next in thread: Vivek Gautam: "[PATCH v3 1/2] drm/exynos: dp: Remove support for unused dptx-phy"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]