[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110326001143.GX3130@pulham.picochip.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:11:43 +0000
From: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv3 3/4] drivers/otp: convert bfin otp to generic OTP
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 06:56:03PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 13:14, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Skip the control pages then if we would run into the ECC area skip
> > + * past to the next data region.
> > + */
> > + raw_addr = region_addr + control_words;
> > + if (raw_addr > 0x80 * BFIN_OTP_WORDS_PER_PAGE)
> > + raw_addr += 0x20 * BFIN_OTP_WORDS_PER_PAGE;
>
> mmm, no, we dont want to do that. the Blackfin documentation is very
> exact when it maps out pages, and we want the driver to match the
> documentation.
>
> but i guess in the other discussion we had, this would be removed anyways.
OK, so in that case could we initially have:
- region for control bits
- region for the first data bits
- region for the ecc for the first data
- region for the second data bits
- region for the ecc for the second data
or shall I just leave it as one big region for now?
>
> > +static int bfin_region_write_word(struct otp_region *region, unsigned long addr,
> > + u64 content)
> > +{
> > + return -EACCES;
> > +}
>
> i think we'd just stub this out as NULL and let the common layer take
> care of rejecting it ?
Yes, that's probably best. At least we're always building the whole
driver then.
>
> > +static const struct otp_device_ops bfin_otp_ops = {
> > + .name = "BFIN",
>
> guess this should be "bfin-otp"
Good spot.
>
> > +static const struct otp_region_ops bfin_region_ops = {
> > + .read_word = bfin_region_read_word,
> > + .write_word = bfin_region_write_word,
> > + .get_size = bfin_region_get_size,
> > + .get_fmt = bfin_region_get_fmt,
> > + .ioctl = bfin_region_ioctl,
> > +};
>
> hmm, i just realized this stuff is per-region. wouldnt the
> read/write/ioctl make more sense as per-device ?
No, I don't think so. The file_operations are all based on the regions
rather than the device so I think it makes sense to have these as region
based operations. We could make them per device and pass the region as
a parameter but I'm not sure that it gains us anything.
Jamie
--
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