[PATCH 1/2] iio: mxs: Add MX23 support into the IIO driver

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Michał Mirosław,

> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>:
> > Dear Michał Mirosław,
> > 
> >> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>:
> >> > This patch adds support for i.MX23 into the LRADC driver. The LRADC
> >> > block on MX23 is not much different from the one on MX28, thus this
> >> > is only a few changes fixing the parts that are specific to MX23.
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > +struct mxs_lradc_of_config {
> >> > +       const int               irq_count;
> >> > +       const char * const      *irq_name;
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[] =
> >> > { +       [IMX23_LRADC] = {
> >> > +               .irq_count      = ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names),
> >> > +               .irq_name       = mx23_lradc_irq_names,
> >> > +       },
> >> > +       [IMX28_LRADC] = {
> >> > +               .irq_count      = ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names),
> >> > +               .irq_name       = mx28_lradc_irq_names,
> >> > +       },
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > 
> >> >  enum mxs_lradc_ts {
> >> >  
> >> >         MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE = 0,
> >> >         MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_4WIRE,
> >> > 
> >> > @@ -857,8 +890,19 @@ static void mxs_lradc_hw_stop(struct mxs_lradc
> >> > *lradc)
> >> > 
> >> >                 writel(0, lradc->base + LRADC_DELAY(i));
> >> >  
> >> >  }
> >> > 
> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] = {
> >> > +       { .compatible = "fsl,imx23-lradc", .data = (void
> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, +       { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-lradc", .data =
> >> > (void
> >> > *)IMX28_LRADC, }, +       { /* sentinel */ }
> >> > +};
> >> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mxs_lradc_dt_ids);
> >> > +
> >> 
> >> Why not s/(void \*)\(IMX.._LRADC\)/\&mxs_lradc_of_config[\1]/ ?
> > 
> > Check the register layout, it differs between MX23 and MX28, that's one
> > reason, since were we to access differently placed registers, we can do
> > it easily as in the SSP/I2C drivers.
> > 
> > Moreover, there are some features on the MX28 that are not on the MX23
> > (like voltage treshold triggers and touchbuttons), with this setup, we
> > can easily check what we're running at at runtime and determine to
> > disallow these.
> > 
> > From my point of view, using the number (IMX23_LRADC / IMX28_LRADC) is
> > much more convenient in the long run.
> 
> I'm asking, because you don't use this number anywhere other than in
> mxs_lradc_probe()
> and there only to dereference the irq-names table. After that the
> structure and number
> are forgotten.

Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about 
register layout, that's why I went down this road of abstraction.

> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curious.

I tried to put it down above ;-)

> Best Regards,
> Michał Mirosław

Best regards,
Marek Vasut