On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 14:04 -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 02:42 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 03:00:19 +0100,
Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Add GPIO to PDC pin map for the SDM845 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
index 2ab7a8885757..e93660922dc2 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,80 @@ static const struct msm_pingroup sdm845_groups[] = {
UFS_RESET(ufs_reset, 0x99f000),
};
+static struct msm_pinctrl_pdc_map sdm845_wakeup_gpios[] = {
[huge array]
+};
Why isn't that array part of the DT? I'd expect other SoCs to
eventually use a similar mechanism, no?
I agree and it should be.
One place I am thinking is to add it to the DT definition of PDC
controller as a data argument -
tlmm: pinctrl@000000{
[...]
interrupts-extended = <&pdc 30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 1>,
<&pdc 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 3>,
<&pdc 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 5>,
^
|--- Provide the GPIO
for the PDC pin here.
};
pdc: interrupt-controller@b220000 {
compatible = "qcom,sdm845-pdc";
reg = <0xb220000 0x30000>;
qcom,pdc-ranges = <0 512 94>, <94 641 15>, <115 662 7>;
#interrupt-cells = <3>; <-------- Increase this from 2 ?
interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
interrupt-controller;
};
Would that be acceptable?
Any ideas on how to do this better?
Thanks,
Lina
