[PATCH v1 05/11] drivers: usb: twl6030: Add dt support for twl6030 usb

[ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2012 11:58 AM, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rajendra Nayak<rnayak at ti.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 28 June 2012 05:21 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add device tree support for twl6030 usb driver.
>>>> Update the Documentation with device tree binding information.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I<kishon at ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt        |   18 ++++++++
>>>>    drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c                      |   45
>>>> ++++++++++++++------
>>>>    2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..f293271
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/twlxxxx-usb.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>> +USB COMPARATOR OF TWL CHIPS
>>>> +
>>>> +TWL6030 USB COMPARATOR
>>>> + - compatible : Should be "ti,twl6030-usb"
>>>> + - interrupts : Two interrupt numbers to the cpu should be specified.
>>>> First
>>>> +   interrupt number is the otg interrupt number that raises ID
>>>> interrupts
>>>> when
>>>> +   the controller has to act as host and the second interrupt number is
>>>> the
>>>> +   usb interrupt number that raises VBUS interrupts when the controller
>>>> has to
>>>> +   act as device
>>>> + - regulator :<supply-name>   can be "vusb" or "ldousb"
>>>> + -<supply-name>-supply : phandle to the regulator device tree node
>>>> +
>>>> +twl6030-usb {
>>>> +       compatible = "ti,twl6030-usb";
>>>> +       interrupts =<   4 10>;
>>>> +       regulator = "vusb";
>>>> +       vusb-supply =<&vusb>;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This doesn't seem right. Why do you ned a 'regulator' string along
>>> with the phandle?
>>
>>
>> The original code was something like
>>         if (twl->features&  TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
>>
>>                 regulator_name = "ldousb";
>>         else
>>                 regulator_name = "vusb";
>>
>> I wasn't sure how to handle this *TWL6025_SUBCLASS* stuff.
>>
>>>
>>>> +};
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
>>>> b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
>>>> index 6a361d2..20b7abe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/otg/twl6030-usb.c
>>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ struct twl6030_usb {
>>>>          u8                      asleep;
>>>>          bool                    irq_enabled;
>>>>          bool                    vbus_enable;
>>>> -       unsigned long           features;
>>>> +       const char              *regulator;
>>>>    };
>>>>
>>>>    #define       comparator_to_twl(x) container_of((x), struct
>>>> twl6030_usb,
>>>> comparator)
>>>> @@ -153,13 +153,6 @@ static int twl6030_start_srp(struct phy_companion
>>>> *comparator)
>>>>
>>>>    static int twl6030_usb_ldo_init(struct twl6030_usb *twl)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       char *regulator_name;
>>>> -
>>>> -       if (twl->features&   TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
>>>>
>>>> -               regulator_name = "ldousb";
>>>> -       else
>>>> -               regulator_name = "vusb";
>>>> -
>>>>          /* Set to OTG_REV 1.3 and turn on the ID_WAKEUP_COMP */
>>>>          twl6030_writeb(twl, TWL6030_MODULE_ID0 , 0x1,
>>>> TWL6030_BACKUP_REG);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -169,7 +162,7 @@ static int twl6030_usb_ldo_init(struct twl6030_usb
>>>> *twl)
>>>>          /* Program MISC2 register and set bit VUSB_IN_VBAT */
>>>>          twl6030_writeb(twl, TWL6030_MODULE_ID0 , 0x10, TWL6030_MISC2);
>>>>
>>>> -       twl->usb3v3 = regulator_get(twl->dev, regulator_name);
>>>> +       twl->usb3v3 = regulator_get(twl->dev, twl->regulator);
>>>>          if (IS_ERR(twl->usb3v3))
>>>>                  return -ENODEV;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -324,9 +317,9 @@ static int __devinit twl6030_usb_probe(struct
>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    {
>>>>          struct twl6030_usb      *twl;
>>>>          int                     status, err;
>>>> -       struct twl4030_usb_data *pdata;
>>>> -       struct device *dev =&pdev->dev;
>>>>
>>>> -       pdata = dev->platform_data;
>>>> +       struct device_node      *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>>> +       struct device           *dev =&pdev->dev;
>>>>
>>>> +       struct twl4030_usb_data *pdata = dev->platform_data;
>>>>
>>>>          twl = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof *twl, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>          if (!twl)
>>>> @@ -335,13 +328,28 @@ static int __devinit twl6030_usb_probe(struct
>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>          twl->dev                =&pdev->dev;
>>>>
>>>>          twl->irq1               = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>>          twl->irq2               = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
>>>> -       twl->features           = pdata->features;
>>>>          twl->linkstat           = OMAP_MUSB_UNKNOWN;
>>>>
>>>>          twl->comparator.set_vbus        = twl6030_set_vbus;
>>>>          twl->comparator.start_srp       = twl6030_start_srp;
>>>>          omap_usb2_set_comparator(&twl->comparator);
>>>>
>>>> +       if (np) {
>>>> +               err = of_property_read_string(np,
>>>> "regulator",&twl->regulator);
>>>>
>>>> +               if (err<   0) {
>>>> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to get
>>>> regulator\n");
>>>> +                       return err;
>>>> +               }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't there a better way for the driver to know which supply to use
>>> instead
>>> of DT passing the supply name?
>>
>>
>> The problem I see is this same driver is used for twl6030 and twl6025
>> and the regulator used is different for these two chips (And I think
>
>
> hmm, so based on what chip is used on a board, shouldn't the board dts
> file just map the right regulator with a supply name?
> This doesn't look like something the driver should be bothered about.

Ok. I can do it that way.

Thanks
Kishon