On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:27 PM Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> NVIDIA BlueField-3 SoC has a few pins that can be used as GPIOs
> or take the default hardware functionality. Add a driver for
> the pinmuxing.
pin muxing
...
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mlxbf.c
Wondering if it would be better to match the GPIO driver naming
schema, i.e. by adding 3. In this case the additional explanation in
Kconfig help won't be necessary.
...
> +#define MLXBF_GPIO0_FW_CONTROL_SET 0
> +#define MLXBF_GPIO0_FW_CONTROL_CLEAR 0x14
> +#define MLXBF_GPIO1_FW_CONTROL_SET 0x80
> +#define MLXBF_GPIO1_FW_CONTROL_CLEAR 0x94
Unclear if these are commands or register offsets. If they are of the
same type (semantically), make them fixed width, e.g., 0x00.
...
> +enum {
> + MLXBF_GPIO_HW_MODE,
> + MLXBF_GPIO_SW_MODE
I would leave a comma here as it might be extended in the future.
> +};
...
> +static const char * const mlxbf_pinctrl_single_group_names[] = {
> + "gpio0", "gpio1", "gpio2", "gpio3", "gpio4", "gpio5", "gpio6",
> + "gpio7", "gpio8", "gpio9", "gpio10", "gpio11", "gpio12", "gpio13",
> + "gpio14", "gpio15", "gpio16", "gpio17", "gpio18", "gpio19", "gpio20",
> + "gpio21", "gpio22", "gpio23", "gpio24", "gpio25", "gpio26", "gpio27",
> + "gpio28", "gpio29", "gpio30", "gpio31", "gpio32", "gpio33", "gpio34",
> + "gpio35", "gpio36", "gpio37", "gpio38", "gpio39", "gpio40", "gpio41",
> + "gpio42", "gpio43", "gpio44", "gpio45", "gpio46", "gpio47", "gpio48",
> + "gpio49", "gpio50", "gpio51", "gpio52", "gpio53", "gpio54", "gpio55"
Ditto.
Can you group by 8?
> +};
> +
> +/* Set of pin numbers for single-pin groups */
> +static const unsigned int mlxbf_pinctrl_single_group_pins[] = {
> + 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
> + 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
> + 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
> + 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
> + 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
> + 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
> + 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
> + 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
Group by 8 which is the more natural length of subarray per line.
Is it just 1:1 to the index? If so, why do you need this table at all?
> +};
...
> +static const struct {
> + const char *name;
> + const char * const *group_names;
Use this instead
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/tree/include/linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h?h=devel#n215
and this
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/tree/include/linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h?h=devel#n222
> +} mlxbf_pmx_funcs[] = {
> +};
...
> +{
> + struct mlxbf_pinctrl *priv = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +
> + /* disable GPIO functionality by giving control back to hardware */
> + if (offset < MLXBF_NGPIOS_GPIO0)
> + writel(BIT(offset), priv->base + MLXBF_GPIO0_FW_CONTROL_CLEAR);
> + else
> + writel(BIT(offset % MLXBF_NGPIOS_GPIO0), priv->base + MLXBF_GPIO1_FW_CONTROL_CLEAR);
> +
Redundant blank line.
> +}
...
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(mlxbf_pinctrl_single_group_names) ==
> + ARRAY_SIZE(mlxbf_pinctrl_single_group_pins));
I would put it on a single line, but it's up to you.
...
> + struct resource *res;
Useless?
...
> + /* This resource is shared so use devm_ioremap */
Can you elaborate on who actually requests the region? And why is it
not _this_ driver?
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + if (!res)
> + return -ENODEV;
...
> + ret = devm_pinctrl_register_and_init(priv->dev,
Is the priv->dev different from dev?
> + &mlxbf_pin_desc,
> + priv,
> + &priv->pctl);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to register pinctrl\n");
...
> + pinctrl_add_gpio_range(priv->pctl, &mlxbf_pinctrl_gpio_ranges[0]);
> + pinctrl_add_gpio_range(priv->pctl, &mlxbf_pinctrl_gpio_ranges[1]);
pinctrl_add_gpio_ranges() ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
