[PATCH v2 04/22] of/platform: add of_platform_device_find()

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
<tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com> wrote:
> On 28 July 2015 at 15:39, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com> wrote:
>>> From an arbitrary node in the tree, find the enclosing node that
>>> corresponds to a platform device, as registered by
>>> of_platform_populate().
>>>
>>> This can be used to find out what device needs to be probed so the
>>> dependency described by a given node is made available.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Move the logic for finding a platform device from its firmware node to
>>>   of/platform.c as it's not needed for ACPI nodes.
>>>
>>>  drivers/of/platform.c       | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  include/linux/of_platform.h |  1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>> index ff27494cda8c..89c5cd513027 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>> @@ -501,6 +501,66 @@ void of_platform_depopulate(struct device *parent)
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_platform_depopulate);
>>>
>>> +static bool of_is_platform(struct device_node *np)
>>> +{
>>> +       int count;
>>> +
>>> +       count = of_property_count_strings(np, "compatible");
>>> +
>>> +       /* The node has to have a compatible string */
>>> +       if (!count)
>>> +               return false;
>>> +
>>> +       /* But it cannot be just a simple memory-mapped bus */
>>> +       if (count == 1 && of_match_node(of_default_bus_match_table, np))
>>> +               return false;
>>> +
>>> +       /* But AMBA devices aren't platform devices */
>>> +       if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "arm,primecell"))
>>> +               return false;
>>> +
>>> +       /* Node is immediately below root */
>>> +       if (!np->parent || !np->parent->parent)
>>> +               return true;
>>> +
>>> +       /* If it's a node in a simple memory-mapped bus */
>>> +       if (of_match_node(of_default_bus_match_table, np->parent))
>>> +               return true;
>>
>> This seems really fragile.
>
> I think this finding logic matches the logic for registering platform
> devices in of_platform_populate and also what is documented in
> Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt.

Right. So now we have that logic in 2 places. One is descending from
the root and one is walking up from the child. That's an opportunity
for some mismatch.

>> What about platform devices which are
>> children of MFDs but are not "simple-mfd"?
>
> This code should deal fine with those (the boards I tested with do
> have them). It probes the mfd master, and that in turn will call
> mfd_add_devices causing the target device to be probed.

I don't see how this function would ever return true in this case
unless you put the MFD at the root level. The only other way to return
true is matching on of_default_bus_match_table for the parent (i.e.
the MFD).


>> Does of_find_device_by_node not work for you?
>
> Well, the dependencies aren't always platform devices, that's why I
> need to go up the tree until I find a node that corresponds to a
> platform device that I can query and probe.
>
> If I had a way to get, say, a i2c device from its fwnode then I would
> just need to make sure that a device's parent is probed before probing
> it and everything would be cleaner in the OF case.

If you have the struct device from the device_node, then you should be
able to do this, right?

>> That is probably not the
>> most efficient search, but we could fix that. We could add struct
>> device ptr to struct device_node and check without searching for
>> example.
>
> That would be great, but I thought there was an issue with a OF node
> being able to be related to more than one struct device (but I haven't
> found this myself yet).

I think it pretty much should be one to one. I'm not aware of any
examples where that is not the case. This function would already be
broken if you could have more than one struct device.

There is an issue where you could have 2 drivers match the same node,
but on different compatible strings. But that's a different issue.

Rob