> From: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@xxxxxx> > > This patch adds a new logic inside the st pinctrl to manage > an unsupported scenario: some sysconfig are not available! > > This is the case of STiH407 where, although documented, the > following registers from SYSCFG_FLASH have been removed from the SoC. > > SYSTEM_CONFIG3040 > Output Enable pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions > and > SYSTEM_ CONFIG3050 > Pull Up pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions > > Without managing this condition an imprecise external abort > will be detect. > > To do this the patch also reviews the st_parse_syscfgs > and other routines to manipulate the registers only if > actually available. > In any case, for example the st_parse_syscfgs detected > an error condition but no action was made in the > st_pctl_probe_dt. > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@xxxxxx> These two SOBs need reordering. > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c > index 9fb66aa..1721611 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c > @@ -410,25 +410,27 @@ static void st_pinconf_set_config(struct st_pio_control *pc, > unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value; > unsigned long mask = BIT(pin); > > - regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value); > - regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value); > - regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value); > - > - /* Clear old values */ > - oe_value &= ~mask; > - pu_value &= ~mask; > - od_value &= ~mask; > - > - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE) > - oe_value |= mask; > - if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU) > - pu_value |= mask; > - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD) > - od_value |= mask; > - > - regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value); > - regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value); > - regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value); > + if (output_enable) { > + regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value); > + oe_value &= ~mask; > + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE) > + oe_value |= mask; > + regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value); > + } > + if (pull_up) { > + regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value); > + pu_value &= ~mask; > + if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU) > + pu_value |= mask; > + regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value); > + } > + if (open_drain) { > + regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value); > + od_value &= ~mask; > + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD) > + od_value |= mask; > + regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value); > + } Nice change. Nit: For consistency with the changes below, please consider placing new lines between the 3 outer checks. > } > <snip> > -static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc, > - int pin, unsigned long *config) > +static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc, int pin, > + unsigned long *config) Unrelated change? > { > unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value; Is it worth checking for (!config) here? > - regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value); > - regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value); > - regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value); > + if (pc->oe) { > + regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value); > + if (oe_value & BIT(pin)) > + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config); > + } > > - if (oe_value & BIT(pin)) > - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config); > - if (pu_value & BIT(pin)) > - ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config); > - if (od_value & BIT(pin)) > - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config); > + if (pc->pu) { > + regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value); > + if (pu_value & BIT(pin)) > + ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config); > + } > > + if (pc->od) { > + regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value); > + if (od_value & BIT(pin)) > + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config); > + } > } Nice. > static int st_pinconf_get_retime_packed(struct st_pinctrl *info, > @@ -1105,8 +1116,21 @@ static int st_pctl_dt_setup_retime(struct st_pinctrl *info, > return -EINVAL; > } > > -static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info, > - int bank, struct device_node *np) > + > +static struct regmap_field *st_pc_get_value(struct device *dev, > + struct regmap *regmap, int bank, > + int data, int lsb, int msb) > +{ > + struct reg_field reg = REG_FIELD((data + bank) * 4, lsb, msb); > + > + if (data < 0) > + return NULL; What happens is data < 0 and it's used in REG_FIELD? Would it make more sense to make this check before calling REG_FIELD? > + return devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, reg); > +} > + > +static void st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info, int bank, > + struct device_node *np) > { > const struct st_pctl_data *data = info->data; > /** > @@ -1116,29 +1140,21 @@ static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info, > */ > int lsb = (bank%4) * ST_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK; > int msb = lsb + ST_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK - 1; > - struct reg_field alt_reg = REG_FIELD((data->alt + bank) * 4, 0, 31); > - struct reg_field oe_reg = REG_FIELD((data->oe + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb); > - struct reg_field pu_reg = REG_FIELD((data->pu + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb); > - struct reg_field od_reg = REG_FIELD((data->od + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb); > struct st_pio_control *pc = &info->banks[bank].pc; > struct device *dev = info->dev; > struct regmap *regmap = info->regmap; > > - pc->alt = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, alt_reg); > - pc->oe = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, oe_reg); > - pc->pu = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, pu_reg); > - pc->od = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, od_reg); > - > - if (IS_ERR(pc->alt) || IS_ERR(pc->oe) || > - IS_ERR(pc->pu) || IS_ERR(pc->od)) > - return -EINVAL; > + pc->alt = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank, data->alt, 0, 31); > + pc->oe = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->oe, lsb, msb); > + pc->pu = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->pu, lsb, msb); > + pc->od = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->od, lsb, msb); > > /* retime avaiable for all pins by default */ > pc->rt_pin_mask = 0xff; > of_property_read_u32(np, "st,retime-pin-mask", &pc->rt_pin_mask); > st_pctl_dt_setup_retime(info, bank, pc); > > - return 0; > + return; > } > > /* -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html