[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219403822.10949.29.camel@odin>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:17:02 +0100
From: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...nel.org>
To: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Fundamental Design Flaw of the Device Driver Model?
On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 14:25 +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> Fundamental Design Flaw of the Device Driver Model?
> ===================================================
>
> Sorry for the misleading subject, its purpose is to draw your attention :-)
> The ideas below are preliminary and I hope I'm not making serious mistakes
> here.
>
> This question has actually been around in my mind for several months, when
> I started to work on some devices with multiple functions. Specifically, a
> Power Management IC (PMIC in short in the following text) usually includes
> LEDs support (charging, indication...) audio, touch screen, power monitoring,
> LDOs, DC-DC bucks, and possibly some others.
>
> The initial two ideas came into my mind were:
>
> 1. separate the functions into multiple devices, write a driver for each
> of these devices
>
I've opted for this option with the WM8350 PMIC driver.
> This, however, creates many questions you have to face with:
>
> 1. on what bus shall these sub-devices be?
> ** this is the reason I choose to use "platform_device", at least they
> can reside on the platform_bus_type, thus platform_driver can be used
> for this sub-device
My WM8350 clients are all platform_devices too.
>
> 2. these devices are actually useless except for linking the sub-device
> to it's sub-device driver and of course, wasting memory. Normally in
> the driver, another dedicated device will be created. E.g. let's take
> a typical simple LED driver as an example:
>
They are not useless as most of my client devices _need_ some sort of
platform data to be passed on for their probe() e.g. my LED driver needs
to know it's brightness values, trigger etc. They also all need a PMIC
reference (passed in the platform_data) which they will need to call any
core PMIC functions e.g. chip read/write
>
> 3. Who should be the correct parent of these LED devices, the intermediate
> sub-device we created just now? Or the pmic device on the I2C bus?
> My answer is the the latter, obviously. However, writing code like:
>
> led_classdev_register(pdev->dev.parent, &led_cdev)
Fwiw, I've made the WM8350 I2C driver the parent. The I2C driver also
contains the core PMIC services e.g. IRQs, GPIO's, IO, etc
> A normal device layout would be:
>
> device specific
> virtual bus type
> |
> platform_bus_type i2c_bus_type | virtual devices
> | | | |
> (device) V V V V
> Platform BUS ---> I2C Controller ---> PMIC -+-> LED device (1)
> |
> +-> LED device (2)
> |
> +-> LED device (3)
> |
> +-> DC-DC Buck1
> |
> +-> DC-DC Buck2
> |
> +-> LDO1
> |
> +-> LDO2
> |
> +-> Backlight PWM1
> |
> +-> Backlight PWM2
> |
> ...
>
Ok, I basically have :-
Platform devices
| |
V V
Platform Bus --> I2C controller --> PMIC +-> LED1
+-> LED2
+-> Audio
+-> DCDC1
+-> Backlight
I originally had a PMIC bus (like above) but decided it was easier just
to use the existing kernel infrastructure. My I2C PMIC driver just
registers the client platform_devices when it probes.
Cheers
Liam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists