Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] gpio: vf610: add i.MX8ULP of_device_id entry

[Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23-09-26, Peng Fan (OSS) 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 | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> index dbc7ba0ee72c..49867d5db642 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 +61,22 @@ 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 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,imx7ulp-gpio",	.data = &imx_data, },
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio",	.data = &imx8ulp_data, },
>  	{ /* sentinel */ }
>  };
>  
> @@ -263,19 +273,37 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
>  	int i;
>  	int ret;
> +	bool dual_base = false;
>  
>  	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);
> +	/* support old compatible strings */
> +	if (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio") &&
> +	    (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx93-gpio") ||
> +	    (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio"))))
> +		dual_base = true;

Could be simplified even further, if we would add the have_dual_base for
the vf610 as well within this patch.

	dual_base = port->sdata->have_dual_base;

	/* support old bindings */
	if (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio") &&
	    (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx93-gpio") ||
	    (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio"))))
		dual_base = true;

	if (dual_base) {
		...

Regards,
  Marco

> +	if ((port->sdata && port->sdata->have_dual_base) || 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
> 
>