Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:01 AM Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/18 5:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 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.
>
> ok.
>
> >
> >> + 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.
> >
>
> driver.h only brings chained_irq.h. of_irq.h is still required. Right ?
>
> >> +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
> >
> > Are you using this?
>
> My bad. Left over from the old code. I will remove it.
>
> >
> >> +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?
> >
>
> Sure.
>
> >> + 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.
> >
>
> That's really cool. Sorry, for not checking that earlier.
> I am pretty new to this.
>
> >> +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.
> >
>
> Great. This will reduce the driver a code by a big factor.
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
>
> >> +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.
>
> Will do.
>
> >
> >> + 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.
> >
>
> Thanks. I will convert them to hierarchical IRQ.
>
When will this series get respun and upstreamed?
Regards,
Bin
