On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 10:23 AM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
>
> i.MX8ULP/93 GPIO supports similar feature as i.MX7ULP GPIO, but i.MX8ULP is
> actually not hardware compatible with i.MX7ULP. i.MX8ULP only has one
> register base, not two bases. i.MX8ULP and i.MX93 actually has two
> interrupts for each gpio controller, one for Trustzone non-secure world,
> one for secure world.
>
> Although the Linux Kernel driver gpio-vf610.c could work with
> fsl,imx7ulp-gpio compatible, it is based on some tricks did in device tree
> with some offset added to base address.
>
> Add a new of_device_id entry for i.MX8ULP. But to make the driver could
> also support old bindings, check the compatible string first, before
> check the device data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> index dbc7ba0ee72c..8e12706c0b22 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> struct fsl_gpio_soc_data {
> /* SoCs has a Port Data Direction Register (PDDR) */
> bool have_paddr;
> + bool have_dual_base;
> };
>
> struct vf610_gpio_port {
> @@ -60,13 +61,26 @@ struct vf610_gpio_port {
> #define PORT_INT_EITHER_EDGE 0xb
> #define PORT_INT_LOGIC_ONE 0xc
>
> +#define IMX8ULP_GPIO_BASE_OFF 0x40
> +#define IMX8ULP_BASE_OFF 0x80
> +
> +static const struct fsl_gpio_soc_data vf610_data = {
> + .have_dual_base = true,
> +};
> +
> static const struct fsl_gpio_soc_data imx_data = {
> .have_paddr = true,
> + .have_dual_base = true,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct fsl_gpio_soc_data imx8ulp_data = {
> + .have_paddr = true,
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id vf610_gpio_dt_ids[] = {
> - { .compatible = "fsl,vf610-gpio", .data = NULL, },
> + { .compatible = "fsl,vf610-gpio", .data = &vf610_data },
> { .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio", .data = &imx_data, },
> + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio", .data = &imx8ulp_data, },
> { /* sentinel */ }
> };
>
> @@ -263,19 +277,38 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> int i;
> int ret;
> + bool dual_base;
>
> port = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*port), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!port)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> port->sdata = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> - port->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> - if (IS_ERR(port->base))
> - return PTR_ERR(port->base);
>
> - port->gpio_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1);
> - if (IS_ERR(port->gpio_base))
> - return PTR_ERR(port->gpio_base);
> + dual_base = port->sdata->have_dual_base;
> +
> + /* support old compatible strings */
> + if (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio") &&
> + (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx93-gpio") ||
Why not just add this compatible to vf610_gpio_dt_ids?
Bart
> + (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio"))))
> + dual_base = true;
> +
> + if (dual_base) {
> + port->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(port->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(port->base);
> +
> + port->gpio_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1);
> + if (IS_ERR(port->gpio_base))
> + return PTR_ERR(port->gpio_base);
> + } else {
> + port->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(port->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(port->base);
> +
> + port->gpio_base = port->base + IMX8ULP_GPIO_BASE_OFF;
> + port->base = port->base + IMX8ULP_BASE_OFF;
> + }
>
> port->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> if (port->irq < 0)
>
> --
> 2.37.1
>
