On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 2:12 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bartosz Golaszewski > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 12:17 AM Robert Marko <robert.marko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Delta TN4810M uses a similar CPLD GPIO expander > > > like the TN48M, but it has pins for 48 SFP+ ports, > > > making a total of 192 pins. > > > It also provides the TX fault pins which the TN48M > > > does not. > > > > > > Only TX disable pins like on the TN48M are output > > > ones. > > > > > > Thankfully, regmap GPIO allows for the driver to be > > > easily extended to support the TN4810M. > > > > > > Note that this patch depends on the following series: > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/list/?series=247538 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-tn48m.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tn48m.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tn48m.c > > > index b12a6b4bc4b3..e429e7ade941 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tn48m.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tn48m.c > > > @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ enum tn48m_gpio_type { > > > TN48M_SFP_TX_DISABLE = 1, > > > TN48M_SFP_PRESENT, > > > TN48M_SFP_LOS, > > > + TN4810M_SFP_TX_DISABLE, > > > + TN4810M_SFP_TX_FAULT, > > > + TN4810M_SFP_PRESENT, > > > + TN4810M_SFP_LOS, > > > }; > > > > > > static int tn48m_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > @@ -46,17 +50,36 @@ static int tn48m_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > > config.regmap = regmap; > > > config.parent = &pdev->dev; > > > - config.ngpio = 4; > > > + config.ngpio_per_reg = 8; > > > > > > switch (type) { > > > case TN48M_SFP_TX_DISABLE: > > > config.reg_set_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 4; > > > break; > > > case TN48M_SFP_PRESENT: > > > config.reg_dat_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 4; > > > break; > > > case TN48M_SFP_LOS: > > > config.reg_dat_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 4; > > > + break; > > > + case TN4810M_SFP_TX_DISABLE: > > > + config.reg_set_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 48; > > > + break; > > > + case TN4810M_SFP_TX_FAULT: > > > + config.reg_dat_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 48; > > > + break; > > > + case TN4810M_SFP_PRESENT: > > > + config.reg_dat_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 48; > > > + break; > > > + case TN4810M_SFP_LOS: > > > + config.reg_dat_base = base; > > > + config.ngpio = 48; > > > break; > > > default: > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unknown type %d\n", type); > > > @@ -67,9 +90,34 @@ static int tn48m_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > } > > > > > > static const struct of_device_id tn48m_gpio_of_match[] = { > > > - { .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-tx-disable", .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_TX_DISABLE }, > > > - { .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-present", .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_PRESENT }, > > > - { .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-los", .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_LOS }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-tx-disable", > > > + .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_TX_DISABLE > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-present", > > > + .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_PRESENT > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn48m-gpio-sfp-los", > > > + .data = (void *)TN48M_SFP_LOS > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn4810m-gpio-sfp-tx-disable", > > > + .data = (void *)TN4810M_SFP_TX_DISABLE > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn4810m-gpio-sfp-tx-fault", > > > + .data = (void *)TN4810M_SFP_TX_FAULT > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn4810m-gpio-sfp-present", > > > + .data = (void *)TN4810M_SFP_PRESENT > > > + }, > > > + { > > > + .compatible = "delta,tn4810m-gpio-sfp-los", > > > + .data = (void *)TN4810M_SFP_LOS > > > + }, > > > { } > > > }; > > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tn48m_gpio_of_match); > > > -- > > > 2.31.1 > > > > > > > This looks good to me. I suppose the other patches are going in > > through the MFD tree. I don't see anything that can fail here at > > build-time - can you confirm that I can pick these patches up > > separately for v5.15? > > > > Bartosz > > Scratch that, I now saw Linus' comment about the special purpose pins > under the other series. Let's clear that up first. Yeah, I have finally replied to Linus, hopefully, we can clear it up. Thanks, Robert > > Bart -- Robert Marko Staff Embedded Linux Engineer Sartura Ltd. Lendavska ulica 16a 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Email: robert.marko@xxxxxxxxxx Web: www.sartura.hr
