Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
it to be used on non-OF platforms.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core-spi.c | 36 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core-spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core-spi.c
index 08ccdc5f0cc9..d2d1e86568a3 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core-spi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core-spi.c
@@ -12,9 +12,10 @@
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/property.h>
#include <linux/spi/spi.h>
#define MCHP_CORESPI_MAX_CS (8)
@@ -296,6 +297,7 @@ static int mchp_corespi_transfer_one(struct spi_controller *host,
static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
const char *protocol = "motorola";
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
struct spi_controller *host;
struct mchp_corespi *spi;
struct resource *res;
@@ -310,7 +312,7 @@ static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, host);
- if (of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "num-cs", &num_cs))
+ if (device_property_read_u32(dev, "num-cs", &num_cs))
num_cs = MCHP_CORESPI_MAX_CS;
/*
@@ -318,20 +320,18 @@ static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
* CoreSPI can be configured for Motorola, TI or NSC.
* The current driver supports only Motorola mode.
*/
- ret = of_property_read_string(pdev->dev.of_node, "microchip,protocol-configuration",
- &protocol);
- if (ret && ret != -EINVAL)
- return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Error reading protocol-configuration\n");
- if (strcmp(protocol, "motorola") != 0)
- return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
- "CoreSPI: protocol '%s' not supported by this driver\n",
- protocol);
+ ret = device_property_match_property_string(dev, "microchip,protocol-configuration",
+ &protocol, 1);
+ if (ret == -ENOENT)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "CoreSPI: protocol is not supported by this driver\n");
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Error reading protocol-configuration\n");
/*
* Motorola mode (0-3): CFG_MOT_MODE
* Mode is fixed in the IP configurator.
*/
- ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "microchip,motorola-mode", &mode);
+ ret = device_property_read_u32(dev, "microchip,motorola-mode", &mode);
if (ret)
mode = MCHP_CORESPI_DEFAULT_MOTOROLA_MODE;
else if (mode > 3)
@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
* The hardware allows frame sizes <= APB data width.
* However, this driver currently only supports 8-bit frames.
*/
- ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "microchip,frame-size", &frame_size);
+ ret = device_property_read_u32(dev, "microchip,frame-size", &frame_size);
if (!ret && frame_size != 8)
return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
"CoreSPI: frame size %u not supported by this driver\n",
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
* To prevent CS deassertion when TX FIFO drains, the ssel-active property
* keeps CS asserted for the full SPI transfer.
*/
- assert_ssel = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "microchip,ssel-active");
+ assert_ssel = device_property_read_bool(dev, "microchip,ssel-active");
if (!assert_ssel)
return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
"hardware must enable 'microchip,ssel-active' to keep CS asserted for the SPI transfer\n");
@@ -369,9 +369,10 @@ static int mchp_corespi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
host->bits_per_word_mask = SPI_BPW_RANGE_MASK(4, 32);
host->transfer_one = mchp_corespi_transfer_one;
host->set_cs = mchp_corespi_set_cs;
- host->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
- ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "fifo-depth", &spi->fifo_depth);
+ device_set_node(&host->dev, dev_fwnode(dev));
+
+ ret = device_property_read_u32(dev, "fifo-depth", &spi->fifo_depth);
if (ret)
spi->fifo_depth = MCHP_CORESPI_DEFAULT_FIFO_DEPTH;
@@ -421,24 +422,23 @@ static void mchp_corespi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
* Platform driver data structure
*/
-#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
static const struct of_device_id mchp_corespi_dt_ids[] = {
{ .compatible = "microchip,corespi-rtl-v5" },
{ /* sentinel */ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mchp_corespi_dt_ids);
-#endif
static struct platform_driver mchp_corespi_driver = {
.probe = mchp_corespi_probe,
.driver = {
.name = "microchip-corespi",
.pm = MICROCHIP_SPI_PM_OPS,
- .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(mchp_corespi_dt_ids),
+ .of_match_table = mchp_corespi_dt_ids,
},
.remove = mchp_corespi_remove,
};
module_platform_driver(mchp_corespi_driver);
+
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Microchip CoreSPI controller driver");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Prajna Rajendra Kumar <prajna.rajendrakumar@microchip.com>");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
2.50.1On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:15:32PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow > it to be used on non-OF platforms. Are we sure that these properties are tasteful and sensible on an ACPI system?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:42:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:15:32PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow > > it to be used on non-OF platforms. > > Are we sure that these properties are tasteful and sensible on an ACPI > system? If you're on an ACPI platform, you're probably not using this IP. It's really old and in need of an update (like what the "hard" version of it got), we just happened to have some customers that wanted more SPI controllers on the FPGA. I dunno if using these provider agnostic APIs is something we should be doing where possible as good practise, but if it's to make the IP more broadly usable I'd say that that's mostly wasted effort.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:00:48PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:42:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:15:32PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow > > > it to be used on non-OF platforms. > > Are we sure that these properties are tasteful and sensible on an ACPI > > system? > If you're on an ACPI platform, you're probably not using this IP. It's > really old and in need of an update (like what the "hard" version of > it got), we just happened to have some customers that wanted more SPI > controllers on the FPGA. I dunno if using these provider agnostic APIs > is something we should be doing where possible as good practise, but if > it's to make the IP more broadly usable I'd say that that's mostly > wasted effort. I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless default given that there are cases where we actively want a different interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:19:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:00:48PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:42:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:15:32PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow > > > > it to be used on non-OF platforms. > > > > Are we sure that these properties are tasteful and sensible on an ACPI > > > system? > > > If you're on an ACPI platform, you're probably not using this IP. OK. > > It's > > really old and in need of an update (like what the "hard" version of > > it got), we just happened to have some customers that wanted more SPI > > controllers on the FPGA. I dunno if using these provider agnostic APIs > > is something we should be doing where possible as good practise, but if > > it's to make the IP more broadly usable I'd say that that's mostly > > wasted effort. See below. > I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless > default given that there are cases where we actively want a different > interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all. Okay,I think the commit message is a bit misleading. There are two ideas behind this change, one is to have agnostic APIs in use, second one to make code shorter and cleaner. Assuming we are targeting the second one as a main point, does this make sense? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:19:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless > > default given that there are cases where we actively want a different > > interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all. > Okay,I think the commit message is a bit misleading. There are two ideas behind > this change, one is to have agnostic APIs in use, second one to make code > shorter and cleaner. Assuming we are targeting the second one as a main point, > does this make sense? I'm still a bit dubious TBH, I didn't spot anything super obvious in the patch and there's the whole should you actually use anything other than DT question still. It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if there's some big win there.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:19:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless > > > default given that there are cases where we actively want a different > > > interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all. > > > Okay,I think the commit message is a bit misleading. There are two ideas behind > > this change, one is to have agnostic APIs in use, second one to make code > > shorter and cleaner. Assuming we are targeting the second one as a main point, > > does this make sense? > I'm still a bit dubious TBH, I didn't spot anything super obvious in the > patch and there's the whole should you actually use anything other than > DT question still. The only helpful API which has no par on DT side is matching strings. Otherwise it's only about shorten lines and less LoCs. > It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if > there's some big win there. I dropped it in v2. Can that be applied instead? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if > > there's some big win there. > I dropped it in v2. Can that be applied instead? The microchip people do usually review stuff.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 05:24:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if > > > there's some big win there. > > > I dropped it in v2. Can that be applied instead? > > The microchip people do usually review stuff. I mentioned v1 to Prajna this morning, she was definitely intending providing review, so I'd expect that you hear from her on v2 soon enough.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 05:29:20PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 05:24:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if > > > > there's some big win there. > > > > > I dropped it in v2. Can that be applied instead? > > > > The microchip people do usually review stuff. > > I mentioned v1 to Prajna this morning, she was definitely intending > providing review, so I'd expect that you hear from her on v2 soon > enough. Thank you! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.