[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=j=Dp015ZsU44DH3p1s_XdxvAX8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:22:05 -0400
From: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@...ometrics.ca>
To: "Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@...com>
Cc: "davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com"
<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bastian Ruppert <Bastian.Ruppert@...erin.de>,
"Griffis, Brad" <bgriffis@...com>,
Jon Povey <jon.povey@...elogic.co.uk>,
Philby John <pjohn@...mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] da8xx: enable the use of the ICPFUNC in i2c-davinci
Hi Sekhar,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Nori, Sekhar <nsekhar@...com> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 03:08:09, Ben Gardiner wrote:
>> Both the da850 and da830 have an I2C controller which has the ICPFUNC
>> registers. Indicate this for all da830 and da850 boards by setting the
>> has_pfunc flag true in the da8xx utility setup routine for registering the
>> I2C controller
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@...ometrics.ca>
>> Cc: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
>> Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
>>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
>> index beda8a4..da01558 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c
>> @@ -324,6 +324,12 @@ int __init da8xx_register_i2c(int instance,
>> else
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Both the DA850 and DA830 have an I2C controller which has the
>> + * ICPFUNC et. al. registers
>> + */
>> + pdata->has_pfunc = 1;
>
> The I2C driver implements a default platform data
> so it should actually be legal for a DA8x board to
> pass NULL platform data. In that case this line
> will crash.
Good catch, thanks.
> [...] You should either check for pdata to
> be NULL or just let each board choose whether it
> needs recovery (I think the better option).
I understand "check for pdata to be NULL." If you think it is the
better option I'd be happy to implement it but I don't understand how
to implement "let each board choose whether it needs recovery."
Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner
---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca
--
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