-----Original Message-----
From: Shilimkar, Santosh
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Varadarajan, Charulatha; Cousson, Benoit
Cc: david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@linux-
foundation.org; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra;
khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; Basak, Partha
Subject: RE: [PATCH 11/13 v3] OMAP: GPIO: Introduce support for OMAP2PLUS chip
GPIO init
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
Varadarajan, Charulatha
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Cousson, Benoit
Cc: david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@linux-
foundation.org; linux-
omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra;
khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Basak, Partha
Subject: RE: [PATCH 11/13 v3] OMAP: GPIO: Introduce support for OMAP2PLUS chip
GPIO init
-----Original Message-----
From: Cousson, Benoit
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:53 PM
To: Varadarajan, Charulatha
Cc: david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@linux-
foundation.org; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra;
khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13 v3] OMAP: GPIO: Introduce support for OMAP2PLUS chip
GPIO init
On 6/15/2010 5:05 PM, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote:
From: Charulatha V<charu@xxxxxx>
This patch adds support for handling GPIO as a HWMOD FW adapted
platform device for OMAP2PLUS chips.
gpio_init needs to be done before machine_init functions access gpio APIs.
Hence gpio_init is made as a postcore_initcall.
Signed-off-by: Charulatha V<charu@xxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpio.c | 104
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpio.c
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpio.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpio.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..993995a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpio.c
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+/*
+ * gpio.c - OMAP2PLUS-specific gpio code
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2010 Texas Instruments, Inc.
+ *
+ * Author:
+ * Charulatha V<charu@xxxxxx>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
+#include<linux/gpio.h>
+#include<linux/err.h>
+#include<linux/slab.h>
+
+#include<plat/omap_hwmod.h>
+#include<plat/omap_device.h>
+
+static struct omap_device_pm_latency omap_gpio_latency[] = {
+ [0] = {
+ .deactivate_func = omap_device_idle_hwmods,
+ .activate_func = omap_device_enable_hwmods,
+ .flags = OMAP_DEVICE_LATENCY_AUTO_ADJUST,
+ },
+};
+
+static int omap2_init_gpio(struct omap_hwmod *oh, void *user)
+{
+ struct omap_device *od;
+ struct omap_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
+ char *name = "omap-gpio";
+ static int id;
+ struct omap_gpio_dev_attr *gpio_dev_data;
+
+ if (!oh)
+ pr_err("Could not look up omap gpio %d\n", id + 1);
+
+ pdata = kzalloc(sizeof(struct omap_gpio_platform_data),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdata) {
+ pr_err("Memory allocation failed gpio%d\n", id + 1);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ gpio_dev_data = (struct omap_gpio_dev_attr *)oh->dev_attr;
+ pdata->gpio_attr = gpio_dev_data;
+ pdata->method = (int)user;
That method seems to be an IP version specific information and not a Soc
specific one. You should store that in the hwmod dev_attr.
'method' is chip ID information mapped to GPIO driver specific enum that is
passed to the driver
(eg., METHOD_GPIO_24XX, METHOD_GPIO_44XX). I think this should not be moved to
hwmod dev_attr because
this is only an info required for the driver to identify the chip ID and
accordingly access
functions/ registers.
Also this 'method' would be removed once GPIO code undergoes a complete cleanup.
What does 'method' mean in that context? Maybe the name should be revisited?
Agree. 'method' is used throughout OMAP GPIO code. As mentioned above, this
field would be removed
once the whole GPIO code is cleaned up. This patch series doesn't bother to
clean up GPIO code as the
changes would be huge and intended only for HWMOD FW adaptation. Cleaning up
GPIO code would come as
a separate series and we can address this then.
Sorry if my comment is not aligned but I thought we are addressing the
gpio clean up as well.
If we are re-vamping the code so much, is it not the right time to clean up as
well ??
