Hi Tomasz, I'm sorry for late reply. On 2016년 08월 25일 23:41, Tomasz Figa wrote: > 2016-08-25 23:30 GMT+09:00 Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> + } >>> + >>> +#define EXYNOS_PIN_BANK_EINTN_EXT(pins, reg, id, pctl_idx, eint_idx) \ >>> + { \ >>> + .type = &bank_type_off, \ >>> + .pctl_offset = reg, \ >>> + .nr_pins = pins, \ >>> + .eint_type = EINT_TYPE_NONE, \ >>> + .name = id, \ >>> + .pctl_res_idx = pctl_idx, \ >>> + .eint_res_idx = eint_dix \ >>> + } >> >> Your patch 4/7 doesn't seem to use this one, so this is dead code for >> the time being. Please add when there is real need for it. >> >> Also it doesn't really make much sense to have index for both pctl and >> eint. Please define first entry of regs property as always pointing to >> pctl registers and by also eint registers for usual controllers. Then >> second regs entry would be eint registers for controllers with >> separate register blocks. Then there is only a need to have >> eint_res_idx in the driver and no need for pctl_res_idx, because it >> would be always 0. > > Ah, sorry, I got confused again by which registers are where in these > GPF banks. Let's make it the other way around and make DT contain eint > registers in first regs entry and hardcode eint_res_idx to 0 for the > time being. I got with slight confusion. Do you mean that you want to remove the 'eint_res_idx' because it is always zero(0) as your comment. And do you agree to add 'pctl_res_idx'? Also, as you commented, the eint_res_idx for both GPA and GPFx is zero(0). Example: pinctrl_alive: pinctrl@10580000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-pinctrl"; /* ALIVE domain , IMEM domain */ reg = <0x10580000 0x1a20>, <0x11090000 0x100>; wakeup-interrupt-controller { compatible = "samsung,exynos7-wakeup-eint"; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 16 0>; }; }; GPA's eint_res_idx is 0 GPA's pctl_res_idx is 0 GPFx's eint_res_idx is 0 GPFx's pctl_res_idx is 1 However it should be still beneficial to refactor the code > and calculate per-bank eint_base to avoid adding the offset every > time, similarly to pctl_base/offset, from my suggestion below. I agree. I'll modify it according to your comment. > >>> @@ -345,7 +346,8 @@ static void pin_to_reg_bank(struct samsung_pinctrl_drv_data *drvdata, >>> ((b->pin_base + b->nr_pins - 1) < pin)) >>> b++; >>> >>> - *reg = drvdata->virt_base + b->pctl_offset; >>> + pctl_res_idx = b->pctl_res_idx; >>> + *reg = drvdata->virt_base[pctl_res_idx] + b->pctl_offset; >> >> I suggested something slightly different. Instead of >> bank::pctl_res_idx, I proposed bank::pctl_base. >> bank_info::pctl_res_idx would be specified only in init driver data >> and bank::pctl_base would be calculated at probe time as >> drvdata->virt_base[bank_info->pctl_res_idx] + bank_info->pctl_offset. >> This would eliminate the need to do any indexing and adding further in >> the code and make things simpler. >> >> Taking my other comments above, pctl part would be unchanged and only >> eint addresses and offsets would be affected. > > Ah, scratch this one sentence. I got confused with the register layout > again, sorry. Please refactor both eint and pctl as I suggested in the > upper paragraph. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi -- 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