[PATCH v5 07/15] ARM: mxs: Add gpio support

[Shawn Guo]

Hi Uwe,

2010/12/10 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>:
> Hello Shawn,
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 04:06:40PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> +     /* set level or edge */
>> +     if (edge & GPIO_INT_LEV_MASK)
>> +             __raw_writel(1 << (gpio & 31),
>> +                     port->base + PINCTRL_IRQLEV(port->id) + MXS_SET_ADDR);
>> +     else
>> +             __raw_writel(1 << (gpio & 31),
>> +                     port->base + PINCTRL_IRQLEV(port->id) + MXS_CLR_ADDR);
> Is this preferable?:
>
>        __raw_writel(1 << (gpio & 31), port->base + PINCTRL_IRQLEV(port->id) +
>                (edge & GPIO_INT_LEV_MASK ? MXS_SET_ADDR : MXS_CLR_ADDR))
>
> .  I'm not sure.  And if you like my __raw_setl/__raw_clearl (or
> __raw_clrl?) suggestion this won't work though.  If you don't, I'd
> prefer to be easily able to see that the two commands only differ by
> MXS_SET_ADDR vs. MXS_CLR_ADDR.
>
> e.g.
>
>        u32 nicename = 1 << (gpio & 31);
>        correcttype addr = port->base + PINCTRL_IRQLEV(port->id);
>
>        if (edge & GPIO_INT_LEV_MASK)
>                __raw_writel(nicename, addr + MXS_SET_ADDR);
>        else
>                __raw_writel(nicename, addr + MXS_CLR_ADDR);
>
You are more satisfied if I have the following in v6 patch, aren't you?

        if (edge & GPIO_INT_LEV_MASK)
                __raw_setl(nicename, addr);
        else
                __raw_clearl(nicename, addr);

Do we need namespace here?  __mxs_setl/__mxs_clearl or
__mxs_raw_setl/__mxs_raw_clearl?

I suppose they will be inline functions in mxs.h.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn