Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753419Ab0GZFHH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:07:07 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:44468 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753091Ab0GZFHD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:07:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [192.163.20.231] In-Reply-To: <4C49B2A2.8080100@oracle.com> References: <1279794727-7669-1-git-send-email-pavan_savoy@ti.com> <20100722125348.e4cd696f.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4C49B2A2.8080100@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:37:02 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0vJ7nY3K29JFdhot2h-ZnYoZTaU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers:staging:ti-st: patches From: Pavan Savoy To: Randy Dunlap Cc: gregkh@suse.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4077 Lines: 105 On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 07/22/10 21:56, Pavan Savoy wrote: >> Randy, >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:32:04 -0500 pavan_savoy@ti.com wrote: >>> >>>> From: Pavan Savoy >>>> >>>> The following patches cleanup bit of a mess and also adds functionality to protocol drivers. >>>> with the 3rd patch now providing context to even the protocol drivers, the single device limit >>>> or support for multiple devices would be easier to implement. >>>> >>>> These patches depend on the previously submitted >>>> 0001-drivers-staging-ti-st-make-use-of-linux-err-codes.patch >>>> commit d39d49b393d94f4137cee4f64526a4695352f183 >>>> >>>> Pavan Savoy (3): >>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: smarten, reduce logs >>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: cleanup code comments >>>>   drivers:staging:ti-st: give proto drivers context >>>> >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/bt_drv.c  |   23 +++++--- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st.h      |   52 +++++++++-------- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.c |  118 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_core.h |   74 +++++++++++++++++-------- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.c  |   73 ++++++++++++++---------- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_kim.h  |   77 ++++++++++++++++--------- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.c   |    4 +- >>>>  drivers/staging/ti-st/st_ll.h   |    9 +++- >>>>  8 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have reported this error a few times.  Where is the patch for it?? >>> >>> ERROR: "st_get_plat_device" [drivers/staging/ti-st/st_drv.ko] undefined! >> >> >> Yes, on one of the earlier patch sets, I had mentioned that the ST >> driver being a platform device, needs definition in any of the >> arch/XX/mach-XX/board-XX.c or devices.c or somewhere... >> >> and hence it is in that board-XX.c file that the symbol >> st_get_plat_device needs to be exported, the reason for that being, >> >> ST driver being both a TTY ldisc driver and platform driver, in TTY >> contexts it would need to refer to platform driver's data. So it does >> a st_get_plat_device which returns the platform device structure, and >> then does a dev_getdrvdata from it. >> >> here's a snippet of code ... >> /* >>  * ST related functions related functions >>  */ >> #include >> >> long gpios[] = { 55, -1, -1 }; >> static struct platform_device ti_st_device = { >>         .name           = "kim", >>         .id             = -1, >>         .dev.platform_data      = &gpios, >> }; >> >> struct platform_device *st_get_plat_device(void) >> { >>         return &ti_st_device; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(st_get_plat_device); >> >> static __init int add_ti_st_device(void) >> { >>         platform_device_register(&ti_st_device); >>         dev_info(&ti_st_device.dev,"registered platform TI ST device\n"); >> >>         return 0; >> } >> device_initcall(add_ti_st_device); >> >> >> We have that in our local trees in arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-sdp4430.c > > Thanks for the explanation. > > Is the driver platform-specific? > E.g., should it not even be built on x86? Yes. Requirement of the hardware is very much a must. However it is a separate peripheral (WiLink 7 - uart interfaced), may be there is a x86 platform with this - but certainly not desktops. on linux-next, I generally put in that st_dev.c file for x86 - verify whether it builds as a module, inserts/rmmod, basic other functionalities (which doesn't involve response from chip..) But verify full functionality on board which constitutes that. > -- > ~Randy > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/