wt., 12 maj 2020 o 16:41 Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>
> >> +
> >> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>");
> >> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("GPIO generic regmap driver core");
> >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/gpio-regmap.h b/include/linux/gpio-regmap.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..a868cbcde6e9
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/linux/gpio-regmap.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef _LINUX_GPIO_REGMAP_H
> >> +#define _LINUX_GPIO_REGMAP_H
> >> +
> >> +struct gpio_regmap;
> >> +
> >> +#define GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR_ZERO ((unsigned long)(-1))
> >> +#define GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR(addr) ((addr) ? : GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR_ZERO)
> >> +
> >
> > What if the addr is actually 0?
>
> Then the driver has to set GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR_ZERO or use the convenience
> macro GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR.
>
> So you can have
>
> struct gpio_regmap_config config = { 0 };
> config.reg_dat_base = 0x10;
> config.reg_dir_out_base = 0x20;
>
> or
>
> config.reg_dat_base = GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR_ZERO;
>
> or if you can't be sure if the RHS value might be zero:
>
> config.reg_dat_base = GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR(reg);
>
>
> > Maybe drop GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR and require users to set unused registers
> > to GPIO_REGMAP_ADDR_ZERO?
>
> Thats bad because:
> * you'd have to set plenty of unused base registers for a simple driver
> * if there will be additional properties in the future, you have to
> touch
> all other drivers, because they are initialized as 0 (ie. valid reg
> 0).
>
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct gpio_regmap_config - Description of a generic regmap
> >> gpio_chip.
> >> + *
> >> + * @parent: The parent device
> >> + * @regmap: The regmap used to access the registers
> >> + * given, the name of the device is used
> >> + * @label: (Optional) Descriptive name for GPIO
> >> controller.
> >> + * If not given, the name of the device is used.
> >> + * @ngpio: Number of GPIOs
> >> + * @reg_dat_base: (Optional) (in) register base address
> >> + * @reg_set_base: (Optional) set register base address
> >> + * @reg_clr_base: (Optional) clear register base address
> >> + * @reg_dir_in_base: (Optional) out setting register base address
> >> + * @reg_dir_out_base: (Optional) in setting register base address
> >
> > The two above are inverted I think?
> good catch.
>
> > Also: why the limitation of only supporting one at a time?
>
> they should be exclusive, either you have a register where you set the
> output bits to one, or the input bits. Maybe this need a bit more
> context
> above. in gpio-mmio.c you can set both and both are used in
> set_direction(), but only one is read in get_direction().
>
> That being said, I have no strong opinion wether they should be
> exclusive
> or not, besides the symmetry of set_/get_direction().
>
> -michael
>
Sorry for the late response, your comments make sense to me. Are you
going to submit a v4 before the v5.8 merge window?
Bart
