[RFC 03/12] exynos-fimc-is: Adds fimc-is driver core files
Sylwester Nawrocki
sylvester.nawrocki at gmail.com
Sun Mar 24 00:41:20 EST 2013
On 03/08/2013 03:59 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote:
> This driver is for the FIMC-IS IP available in Samsung Exynos5
> SoC onwards. This patch adds the core files for the new driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K<arun.kk at samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kilyeon Im<kilyeon.im at samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/exynos5-is/fimc-is-core.c | 421 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/media/platform/exynos5-is/fimc-is-core.h | 140 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 561 insertions(+)
[...]
> +static int __devinit fimc_is_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
You need to remove this attribute, that's not supported in recent kernels
any more.
> +{
> + struct device *dev =&pdev->dev;
> + struct fimc_is_platdata *pdata;
> + struct resource *res;
> + struct fimc_is *is;
> + struct pinctrl *pctrl;
> + void __iomem *regs;
> + int irq, ret;
> +
> + pr_debug("FIMC-IS Probe Enter\n");
> +
> + pctrl = devm_pinctrl_get_select_default(dev);
> + if (IS_ERR(pctrl)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Pinctrl configuration failed\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
This is not needed any more. If you work with not latest kernel I suggest
to cherry pick
commit ab78029ecc347debbd737f06688d788bd9d60c1d
drivers/pinctrl: grab default handles from device core
and remove those devm_pinctrl_get_select_default() calls from drivers.
> + if (!pdev->dev.of_node) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Null platform data\n");
Huh ? Since this driver is for dt-only platforms, is there a need to check
pdev->dev.of_node at all ? Probably you want to just return -ENODEV if it
is NULL.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + pdata = fimc_is_parse_dt(dev);
> + if (!pdata) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Parse DT failed\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + is = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*is), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!is)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + is->pdev = pdev;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + regs = devm_request_and_ioremap(dev, res);
> + if (regs == NULL) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to obtain io memory\n");
> + return -ENOENT;
> + }
> +
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + if (irq< 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ\n");
> + return irq;
> + }
> +
> + ret = fimc_is_clk_cfg(is);
> + if (ret< 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Clock config failed\n");
> + goto err_clk;
> + }
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, is);
> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> + if (ret< 0)
> + goto err_clk;
> +
> + is->alloc_ctx = vb2_dma_contig_init_ctx(dev);
> + if (IS_ERR(is->alloc_ctx)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(is->alloc_ctx);
> + goto err_pm;
> + }
> +
> + /* Create sensor subdevs */
> + is->pdata = pdata;
> + ret = fimc_is_create_sensor_subdevs(is);
> + if (ret< 0)
> + goto err_sensor_sd;
> +
> + /* Init FIMC Pipeline */
> + ret = fimc_is_pipeline_init(&is->pipeline, 0, is);
> + if (ret< 0)
> + goto err_sd;
> +
> + /* Init FIMC Interface */
> + ret = fimc_is_interface_init(&is->interface, regs, irq);
> + if (ret< 0)
> + goto err_sd;
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "FIMC-IS registered successfully\n");
Shouldn't there be pm_runtime_put() ?
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_sd:
> + fimc_is_pipeline_destroy(&is->pipeline);
> +err_sensor_sd:
> + fimc_is_unregister_sensor_subdevs(is);
> +err_vb:
> + vb2_dma_contig_cleanup_ctx(is->alloc_ctx);
> +err_pm:
> + pm_runtime_put(dev);
> +err_clk:
> + fimc_is_clk_put(is);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int fimc_is_clk_enable(struct fimc_is *is)
> +{
> + clk_enable(is->clock[IS_CLK_GATE0]);
> + clk_enable(is->clock[IS_CLK_GATE1]);
No need to check return value ?
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void fimc_is_clk_disable(struct fimc_is *is)
> +{
> + clk_disable(is->clock[IS_CLK_GATE0]);
> + clk_disable(is->clock[IS_CLK_GATE1]);
> +}
> +
> +static int fimc_is_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct fimc_is *is = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = fimc_is_clk_enable(is);
> + if (ret< 0)
> + dev_err(dev, "Could not enable clocks\n");
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int fimc_is_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct fimc_is *is = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + fimc_is_clk_disable(is);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int fimc_is_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return fimc_is_pm_resume(dev);
> +}
> +
> +static int fimc_is_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return fimc_is_pm_suspend(dev);
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static int fimc_is_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return fimc_is_pm_resume(dev);
> +}
> +
> +static int fimc_is_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return fimc_is_pm_suspend(dev);
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
> +
> +static int fimc_is_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct fimc_is *is = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct device *dev =&pdev->dev;
> +
> + pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> + pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> + fimc_is_pipeline_destroy(&is->pipeline);
> + fimc_is_unregister_sensor_subdevs(is);
> + vb2_dma_contig_cleanup_ctx(is->alloc_ctx);
> + fimc_is_clk_put(is);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct platform_device_id fimc_is_driver_ids[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "exynos5-fimc-is",
> + .driver_data = 0,
This line doesn't change anything, I would just remove it.
But is this fimc_is_driver_ids[] array needed at all ?
> + },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, fimc_is_driver_ids);
> +
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops fimc_is_pm_ops = {
> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(fimc_is_suspend, fimc_is_resume)
> + SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(fimc_is_runtime_suspend, fimc_is_runtime_resume,
> + NULL)
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver fimc_is_driver = {
> + .probe = fimc_is_probe,
> + .remove = fimc_is_remove,
> + .id_table = fimc_is_driver_ids,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = FIMC_IS_DRV_NAME,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .pm =&fimc_is_pm_ops,
How is this driver instantiated from the device tree when there
is no of_match_table ? I didn't find any chunk adding it further
in this series.
> + }
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(fimc_is_driver);
I forgot to say that in general this patch series looks very clean
to me. I'm really happy to see this driver in such a good shape.
Thanks,
Sylwester
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list