[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4 5/8] drm: tegra: Remove redundant host1x
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:25:00PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 11:50 PM, Terje Bergström wrote:
> > On 21.12.2012 16:36, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0200, Terje Bergstrom wrote:
> >>> +static struct platform_driver tegra_drm_platform_driver = {
> >>> + .driver = {
> >>> + .name = "tegradrm",
> >>
> >> This should be "tegra-drm" to match the module name.
> >
> > We've actually created two problems.
> >
> > First is that the device name should match driver name which should
> > match module name. But host1x doesn't know the module name of tegradrm.
> There's no hard requirement for the device/driver name to match the
> module name. It's good thing to do, but nothing will blow up if it don't
> (modules can use MODULE_ALIAS() to declare which drivers they expose).
> But, what's the problem with host1x knowing the driver name; the host1x
> driver and tegradrm driver are both part of the same code-base, so this
> seems trivial to achieve.

Indeed. If we define the name to match the tegra-drm module name, then
just changing the above line is fine. This doesn't need to be automatic.
Making sure that both strings match in both drivers is enough.

> > Second problem is that host1x driver creates tegradrm device even if
> > tegradrm isn't loaded to system.
> That's fine. If there's no driver, the device simply won't be probe()d.
> That's just like a device node existing in device tree, but the driver
> for it not being enabled in the kernel, or the relevant module not being
> inserted.
> > These mean that the device has to be created in tegra-drm module to have
> I definitely disagree here.

Instead of going over this back and forth, I've decided to rewrite this
patch from scratch the way I think it should be done. Maybe that'll make
things clearer. I haven't tested it on real hardware yet because I don't
have access over the holidays, but I'll post the patch once I've
verified that it actually works. The code is based on patches 1-4 of
this series and is meant to replace patch 5.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-28 22:41    [W:0.058 / U:4.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site