Hi Sylwester,
On 1 November 2011 13:52, Sylwester Nawrocki <snjw23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> thanks for your work on this.
>
> On 11/01/2011 01:43 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> As gpio chips get registered, a device tree node which represents the
>> gpio chip is searched and attached to it. A translate function is also
>> provided to convert the gpio specifier into actual platform settings
>> for pin function selection, pull up/down and driver strength settings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham<thomas.abraham@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Grant Likely<grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> - As suggested by Rob and Grant, the gpio controller node lookup is based
>> on the base address of the gpio controller instead of the unique
>> per-controller compatible property value.
>>
>> This patch is based on the following tree and branch.
>> git://git.linaro.org/git/people/arnd/arm-soc.git branch: for-next
>>
>> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt | 40 ++++++++++++
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..c143058
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
>> +Samsung Exynos4 GPIO Controller
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: Compatible property value should be "samsung,exynos4-gpio>".
>> +
>> +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped
>> + region.
>> +
>> +- #gpio-cells: Should be 4. The syntax of the gpio specifier used by client nodes
>> + should be the following with values derived from the SoC user manual.
>> +<[phandle of the gpio controller node]
>> + [pin number within the gpio controller]
>> + [mux function]
>> + [pull up/down]
>> + [drive strength]>
>> +
>> + Values for gpio specifier:
>> + - Pin number: is a value between 0 to 7.
>> + - Pull Up/Down: 0 - Pull Up/Down Disabled.
>> + 1 - Pull Down Enabled.
>> + 3 - Pull Up Enabled.
>> + - Drive Strength: 0 - 1x,
>> + 1 - 3x,
>> + 2 - 2x,
>> + 3 - 4x
>
> I wonder whether it's worth to have more regular mapping, i.e.
> *) 0 - 1x,
> 1 - 2x,
> 2 - 3x,
> 3 - 4x
>
> It doesn't give as much advantage, and introduces an overhead of doing
> an additional remapping. However I find current mapping of the DT specifier
> values to real driver strength slightly confusing.
> Perhaps unlikely, the future SoCs could have different meaning of the
> register values.
The dts file describes the hardware and the drive strength values
listed above are as per the Exynos4 SoC user manual. I would prefer to
do it the way you suggested, but that would mean dts is not exactly
matching the hardware manual.
[...]
>> + };
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
>> index 8662518..0140756 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
[...]
>> + if (gc->of_gpio_n_cells< 4) {
>> + WARN_ON(1);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>
> nit: Could be simplified to:
>
> if (WARN_ON(gc->of_gpio_n_cells < 4))
> return -EINVAL;
Ok.
>
>> +
>> + if (n> gc->ngpio)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + s3c_gpio_cfgpin(pin, S3C_GPIO_SFN(be32_to_cpu(gpio[1])));
>> + s3c_gpio_setpull(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[2]));
>> + s5p_gpio_set_drvstr(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[3]));
>
> The above functions can fail and IMHO ignoring the return value here
> makes the system harder to debug.
Ok.
>
> Assuming GPIO drive strength specifier mapping *) the following code could
> do the remapping (not tested):
>
> unsigned int tmp = be32_to_cpu(gpio[3]);
> u32 drvstr = ((tmp >> 1) ^ tmp) & 1 ? ~tmp & 3 : tmp;
>
> s5p_gpio_set_drvstr(pin, drvstr);
>
>> + return n;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id exynos4_gpio_dt_match[] __initdata = {
>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4-gpio", },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +
>> +static __init void exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct samsung_gpio_chip *chip,
>> + u64 base, u64 offset)
>> +{
>> + struct gpio_chip *gc =&chip->chip;
>> + u64 address;
>> +
>> + if (!of_have_populated_dt())
>> + return;
>> +
>> + address = (chip->base) ? (base + ((u32)chip->base& 0xfff)) :
>> + (base + offset);
>
> Could the extra parentheses be dropped ?
Can I postpone these changes for now so that this patch gets merged in
next-samsung-dt branch. I believe these are required changes but could
be done a little later.
Thanks for your review and comments on this patch.
Regards,
Thomas.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sylwester
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
