On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: > "DebBarma, Tarun Kanti" <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:35 PM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti >> <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> GPIO IP revisions such as those used in OMAP4 have a set_dataout >>>>> while the previous revisions used a single dataout register. >>>>> Depending on what is available restore the dataout settings >>>>> to the right register. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 9 +++++++-- >>>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >>>>> index 4009446..3df7a98 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >>>>> @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> bank->get_context_loss_count = pdata->get_context_loss_count; >>>>> bank->regs = pdata->regs; >>>>> >>>>> - if (bank->regs->set_dataout && bank->regs->clr_dataout) >>>>> + if (bank->regs->set_dataout) >>>> >>>> This change isn't right. >>>> >>>> The _set_gpio_dataout_reg function depends on the existence of >>>> ->clr_dataout too. >>> Ok, I will add the clr_dataout condtion as well. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> bank->set_dataout = _set_gpio_dataout_reg; >>>>> else >>>>> bank->set_dataout = _set_gpio_dataout_mask; >>>>> @@ -1351,7 +1351,12 @@ static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank) >>>>> bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect); >>>>> __raw_writel(bank->context.fallingdetect, >>>>> bank->base + bank->regs->fallingdetect); >>>>> - __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); >>>>> + if (bank->regs->set_dataout) >>>> >>>> Why the check again? The check has already been done in probe. >>>> >>>> Just use bank->set_dataout() here. >>> Sure, i will make the change. >> >> When I look at the signature of set_dataout(), it does not seem >> straight forward to be used here. It expects (struct gpio_bank *bank, >> int gpio, int enable) to be passed to it. > > IOW, it expects to only set 1 bit, where the context restore needs to > set the value for the whole register. > > OK, then keep the original version, but make sure the if statement > matches is checking for ->set_dataout and ->clr_dataout like the other one. Right. I have done that. -- Tarun > > Kevin > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
