On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Harini Katakam
<harinikatakamlinux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Harini Katakam <harinik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +/* Read/Write access to the GPIO PS registers */
>>> +static inline u32 zynq_gpio_readreg(void __iomem *offset)
>>> +{
>>> + return readl_relaxed(offset);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline void zynq_gpio_writereg(void __iomem *offset, u32 val)
>>> +{
>>> + writel_relaxed(val, offset);
>>> +}
>>
>> I think this is unnecessary and confusing indirection.
>> Just use the readl_relaxed/writel_relaxed functions directly in
>> the code.
>>
>
> This is just to be flexible.
Define exactly what you mean with "flexible" in this context. I
only see unnecessary overhead and hard-to-read code.
>> This is also pretty convoluted. Are you sure you don't want to
>> implement one gpiochip per bank instead? I guess the final "+1"
>> means there is actually one IRQ per bank even?
>
> There is only one IRQ for all four banks.
OK I get it. Then it makes sense to have all banks registered as
one device and the IRQ tied to this one device.
>>> +static const struct dev_pm_ops zynq_gpio_dev_pm_ops = {
>>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(zynq_gpio_suspend, zynq_gpio_resume)
>>> + SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(zynq_gpio_runtime_suspend, zynq_gpio_runtime_resume,
>>> + zynq_gpio_idle)
>>> +};
>>
>> Is this runtime PM implementation aligned with Ulf Hansson's recent
>> new helpers to simplify suspend+runtime PM coexistance?
>>
>
> I'm sorry i just looked at them -
> pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume are not used here.
Sorry, I was more thinking of change
717e5d458e3bfca495a38dca61c64f274c049e46
"PM / Runtime: Implement the pm_generic_runtime functions for CONFIG_PM"
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
