Hi Atish,
thanks for your patch!
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:51 PM Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <wesley@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Adds the GPIO driver for SiFive RISC-V SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <wesley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [Atish: Various fixes and code cleanup]
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx>
(...)
> +config GPIO_SIFIVE
> + bool "SiFive GPIO support"
> + depends on OF_GPIO
> + select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
I suggest to add
select GPIO_GENERIC as per below.
Maybe select REGMAP_MMIO as well.
> + help
> + Say yes here to support the GPIO device on SiFive SoCs.
> +
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
Do you need these two? I think <linux/gpio/driver.h>
will bring them in for you.
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
Are you using this?
> +struct sifive_gpio {
> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + struct gpio_chip gc;
> + unsigned long enabled;
Since max GPIO is 32 why not use an u32 for this?
> + unsigned int trigger[MAX_GPIO];
> + unsigned int irq_parent[MAX_GPIO];
> + struct sifive_gpio *self_ptr[MAX_GPIO];
> +};
> +
> +static void sifive_assign_bit(void __iomem *ptr, unsigned int offset, int value)
> +{
> + /*
> + * It's frustrating that we are not allowed to use the device atomics
> + * which are GUARANTEED to be supported by this device on RISC-V
> + */
> + u32 bit = BIT(offset), old = ioread32(ptr);
> +
> + if (value)
> + iowrite32(old | bit, ptr);
> + else
> + iowrite32(old & ~bit, ptr);
> +}
This looks like a mask and set implementation, you are
essentially reinventing regmap MMIO and the
regmap_update_bits() call. Could you look into
just using regmap MMIO in that case?
If you need examples, look at gpio-mvebu.c that calls
devm_regmap_init_mmio() for example.
> +static int sifive_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
> +static int sifive_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset,
> +static int sifive_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
> +static int sifive_get_value(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
> +static void sifive_set_value(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset,
These functions look like a typical hardware that can use
GPIOLIB_GENERIC and bgpio_init() to set up the accessors.
See gpio-ftgpio010.c for an example.
As a bonus you will get .get/.set_multiple implemented by
the generic GPIO.
> +static void sifive_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
> +static void sifive_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
(...)
> +static struct irq_chip sifive_irqchip = {
> + .name = "sifive-gpio",
> + .irq_set_type = sifive_irq_set_type,
> + .irq_mask = sifive_irq_mask,
> + .irq_unmask = sifive_irq_unmask,
> + .irq_enable = sifive_irq_enable,
> + .irq_disable = sifive_irq_disable,
The handling of .irq_enable and .irq_disable has
changed upstream. Please align with the new codebase
as changed by Hans Verkuil:
commit 461c1a7d4733d1dfd5c47b040cf32a5e7eefbc6c
"gpiolib: override irq_enable/disable"
commit 4e9439ddacea06f35acce4d374bf6bd0acf99bc8
"gpiolib: add flag to indicate if the irq is disabled"
You will need to rebase your work on the v4.20-rc1 once it is
out. Right now the changes are on linux-next or my devel
branch.
> + ngpio = of_irq_count(node);
> + if (ngpio >= MAX_GPIO) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Too many GPIO interrupts (max=%d)\n", MAX_GPIO);
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
(...)
> + for (gpio = 0; gpio < ngpio; ++gpio) {
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, gpio);
> + if (irq < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "invalid IRQ\n");
> + gpiochip_remove(&chip->gc);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
This is an hierarchical IRQ so it should use an hierarchical
irqdomain.
I am discussing with Thierry to make more generic irq domains
for hierarchical IRQ GPIOs, until then you have to look at
gpio-thunderx.c, gpio-uniphier.c or gpio-xgene-sb.c that all
use hierarchical IRQs.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
