On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Harini Katakam <harinikatakamlinux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Harini Katakam <harinik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> +/* Read/Write access to the GPIO PS registers */ >>> +static inline u32 zynq_gpio_readreg(void __iomem *offset) >>> +{ >>> + return readl_relaxed(offset); >>> +} >>> + >>> +static inline void zynq_gpio_writereg(void __iomem *offset, u32 val) >>> +{ >>> + writel_relaxed(val, offset); >>> +} >> >> I think this is unnecessary and confusing indirection. >> Just use the readl_relaxed/writel_relaxed functions directly in >> the code. >> > > This is just to be flexible. Define exactly what you mean with "flexible" in this context. I only see unnecessary overhead and hard-to-read code. >> This is also pretty convoluted. Are you sure you don't want to >> implement one gpiochip per bank instead? I guess the final "+1" >> means there is actually one IRQ per bank even? > > There is only one IRQ for all four banks. OK I get it. Then it makes sense to have all banks registered as one device and the IRQ tied to this one device. >>> +static const struct dev_pm_ops zynq_gpio_dev_pm_ops = { >>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(zynq_gpio_suspend, zynq_gpio_resume) >>> + SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(zynq_gpio_runtime_suspend, zynq_gpio_runtime_resume, >>> + zynq_gpio_idle) >>> +}; >> >> Is this runtime PM implementation aligned with Ulf Hansson's recent >> new helpers to simplify suspend+runtime PM coexistance? >> > > I'm sorry i just looked at them - > pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume are not used here. Sorry, I was more thinking of change 717e5d458e3bfca495a38dca61c64f274c049e46 "PM / Runtime: Implement the pm_generic_runtime functions for CONFIG_PM" Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html