On 04/04/2012 11:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:59:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Tegra20 and Tegra30 share the same register layout within registers, but
>> the addresses of the registers is a little different. Fix the driver to
>> cope with this.
>>
>> @@ -333,6 +336,26 @@ static struct irq_chip tegra_gpio_irq_chip = {
>> #endif
>> };
>>
>> +struct tegra_gpio_soc_config {
>> + u32 bank_stride;
>> + u32 upper_offset;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct tegra_gpio_soc_config tegra20_gpio_config = {
>> + .bank_stride = 0x80,
>> + .upper_offset = 0x800,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct tegra_gpio_soc_config tegra30_gpio_config = {
>> + .bank_stride = 0x100,
>> + .upper_offset = 0x80,
>> +};
>
> Hmm. I wonder if this would be better to just describe in the device tree
> bindings for the gpio controller? Perhaps split the reg property in a higher
> and lower to take care of the offset, and add a nvidia,bank-stride=<x>
> property?
Splitting the reg property in two wouldn't really work. Notice that on
Tegra20, bank_stride is less than upper_offset whereas on Tegra30,
bank_stride is larger than upper_offset, so the issue is that in one
case the registers are interleaved and in the other in separate chunks.
I guess we could put those values into DT, but they only vary per SoC
not per board, so there didn't seem much need.
I believe the Tegra30 register layout is applicable to future chips if
it matters.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
