On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 06:33:44PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11 2018, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > > After submiting this driver to try to get mainlined and get > > out of staging some new cleanups seems to be necessary. > > According to this main of Linus Walleij: > > > > http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2018-June/121742.html > > > > this series tries to fix all of the issues in order to send > > v2 and give it a new try. Because I don't have to hardware to > > test my changes I send new cleanups first in staging to make > > easier to NeilBrown test it and get a feedback about them. > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Patch where GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP was used avoiding > > the use of a custom irq domain has been dropped to > > be sure after this changes all is working properly. > > (This was PATCH 7 in previous series) > > - PATCH 1: > > * avoid introducing new macros and use 'bank' > > field of mtk_gc with register offset. > > * Make correct use of bgpio_init passing new > > void __iomem pointers instead of use the > > macros. > > - Previous series PATCH 8 now is PATCH 7. Avoid the > > use of a switch-case statement which was wrong and > > distinc if we have RISSING AND FALLING EDGE interrupt > > or HIGH LOW level ones. This last two are exclusive and > > cannot be generated at the same time. > > > > Also, I think is we finally avoid to use a new irq_domain the > > need for the new functions introduced for request and release > > resources dissapears. I was diving down the other drivers code > > and I see that these two only are used in drivers which use its > > own irq_domain. Correct me if I am wrong, please. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > Thanks a lot. > This series appears to work, though I sent a separate comment on one > piece of code. Thanks for testing, review and feedback. I have resent a complete v3 of this series taking into account your comments there. > However the gpio are numbers > 480-511 > 448-479 > 416-447 > > instead of > 0-31 > 32-63 > 64-95 > > which would be more normal. > Maybe when you resubmit I'll raid it with Linus Walleij and see if he > can explain why I can't have 0-95. This change is because the chip.base property changed to be -1 for dynamic enumeration of the gpio's. In this mail there is some explanation about it: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rpi-kernel/2014-October/001045.html Best regards, Sergio Paracuellos > > Thanks, > NeilBrown > > > > > > Best regards, > > Sergio Paracuellos > > > > Sergio Paracuellos (7): > > staging: mt7621-gpio: make use 'bgpio_init' from GPIO_GENERIC > > staging: mt7621-gpio: avoid including 'gpio.h' > > staging: mt7621-gpio: make use of 'builtin_platform_driver' > > staging: mt7621-gpio: implement '.irq_[request|release]_resources' > > functions > > staging: mt7621-gpio: add COMPILE_TEST > > staging: mt7621-gpio: add kerneldoc for state data containers > > staging: mt7621-gpio: implement high level and low level irqs > > > > drivers/staging/mt7621-gpio/Kconfig | 3 +- > > drivers/staging/mt7621-gpio/gpio-mt7621.c | 251 ++++++++++++++++-------------- > > 2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 116 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
