Re: [PATCH v6 8/8] iio: dac: adi-axi-dac: add registering of child fdt node

From: David Lechner
Date: Mon Oct 14 2024 - 17:16:44 EST


On 10/14/24 5:08 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Change to obtain the fdt use case as reported in the
> adi,ad3552r.yaml file in this patchset.
>
> The DAC device is defined as a child node of the backend.
> Registering the child fdt node as a platform devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c
> index b887c6343f96..f85e3138d428 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
> #include <linux/iio/buffer.h>
> #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
>
> +#include "ad3552r-hs.h"
> +
> /*
> * Register definitions:
> * https://wiki.analog.com/resources/fpga/docs/axi_dac_ip#register_map
> @@ -738,6 +740,39 @@ static int axi_dac_bus_reg_read(struct iio_backend *back, u32 reg, u32 *val,
> return regmap_read(st->regmap, AXI_DAC_CUSTOM_RD_REG, val);
> }
>
> +static void axi_dac_child_remove(void *data)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *pdev = data;
> +
> + platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> +}
> +
> +static int axi_dac_create_platform_device(struct axi_dac_state *st,
> + struct fwnode_handle *child)
> +{
> + struct ad3552r_hs_platform_data pdata = {
> + .bus_reg_read = axi_dac_bus_reg_read,
> + .bus_reg_write = axi_dac_bus_reg_write,
> + };
> + struct platform_device_info pi = {
> + .parent = st->dev,
> + .name = fwnode_get_name(child),
> + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> + .fwnode = child,
> + .data = &pdata,
> + .size_data = sizeof(pdata),
> + };
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> +
> + pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pi);
> + if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> + return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> +
> + device_set_node(&pdev->dev, child);

Not sure why Nuno suggested adding device_set_node(). It is
redundant since platform_device_register_full() already does
the same thing.

(And setting it after platform_device_register_full() would
be too late anyway since drivers may have already probed.)

> +
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(st->dev, axi_dac_child_remove, pdev);
> +}
> +
> static const struct iio_backend_ops axi_dac_generic_ops = {
> .enable = axi_dac_enable,
> .disable = axi_dac_disable,
> @@ -874,6 +909,24 @@ static int axi_dac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> "failed to register iio backend\n");
>
> + device_for_each_child_node_scoped(&pdev->dev, child) {
> + int val;
> +
> + /* Processing only reg 0 node */
> + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &val);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> + "child node missing.");

Shouldn't the error message say that there is a problem with the reg
property? We already have a handle to the child node, so the child node
isn't missing.

> + if (val != 0)
> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> + "invalid node address.");
> +
> + ret = axi_dac_create_platform_device(st, child);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> + "could not create device.");
> + }
> +
> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AXI DAC IP core (%d.%.2d.%c) probed\n",
> ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(ver),
> ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(ver),
>