[PATCH v8 24/24] gpio/omap: handle set_dataout reg capable IP on restore

[DebBarma, Tarun Kanti]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:35 PM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
<tarun.kanti at ti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman at ti.com> wrote:
>> Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti at ti.com> writes:
>>
>>> From: Nishanth Menon <nm at ti.com>
>>>
>>> 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 at ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti at ti.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>  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.
set_dataout (struct gpio_bank *bank, int gpio, int enable)
{
        void __iomem *reg = bank->base;
        u32 l = GPIO_BIT(bank, gpio);
...
        if (enable)
...
        else
...
        __raw_writel(l, reg);

}
--
Tarun