On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 10:23 AM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c > index dbc7ba0ee72c..8e12706c0b22 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 +61,26 @@ 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 vf610_data = { > + .have_dual_base = true, > +}; > + > 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,vf610-gpio", .data = &vf610_data }, > { .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio", .data = &imx_data, }, > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio", .data = &imx8ulp_data, }, > { /* sentinel */ } > }; > > @@ -263,19 +277,38 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct gpio_irq_chip *girq; > int i; > int ret; > + bool dual_base; > > 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); > + dual_base = port->sdata->have_dual_base; > + > + /* support old compatible strings */ > + if (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx7ulp-gpio") && > + (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx93-gpio") || Why not just add this compatible to vf610_gpio_dt_ids? Bart > + (device_is_compatible(dev, "fsl,imx8ulp-gpio")))) > + dual_base = true; > + > + if (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 >