[PATCH RFC 1/6 v3] gpio: Add a block GPIO API to gpiolib
Ryan Mallon
rmallon at gmail.com
Mon Oct 15 18:05:00 EDT 2012
On 16/10/12 04:20, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> thank you for your feedback, I will include it, except for some points
> noted below:
>>> + gbc->mask |= BIT(bit);
>>> +
>>> + /* collect gpios that are specified together, represented by
>>> + * neighboring bits
>>> + */
>>> + remap = &gbc->remap[gbc->nremap - 1];
>>
>> This looks broken. If gbc was re-alloced above (index < 0) then
>> gbc->remap == NULL and this will oops?
>
> No, because I took care that even though index can be < 0, the resulting
> pointer is never dereferenced for -1.
Ah, I see. I think its a bit non-obvious and flaky though, since it
looks like you are both dereferencing a potentially NULL pointer, and
indexing an array with -1.
Even changing it to this I think makes it a bit more clear:
if (gbc->remap == 0 ||
bit - i != gbc->remap[gbc->nremap - 1].offset)
gbc->nremap++;
gbc->remap = krealloc(...);
...
If you want to keep your way, at the very least I think it deserves a
comment, since it is easy to misread.
>> The remap functionality isn't very well explained
>
> Documenting now in gpio.h like this:
>
> /*
> * struct gpio_remap - a structure for describing a bit mapping
> * @mask: a bit mask
> * @offset: how many bits to shift to the left (negative: to the
> * right)
> *
> * When we are mapping bit values from one word to another (here: from
> * GPIO block domain to GPIO driver domain), we first mask them out
> * with mask and shift them as specified with offset. More complicated
> * mappings are done by grouping several of those structs and adding
> * the results together.
> */
> struct gpio_remap {
> int mask;
> int offset;
> };
Looks good. Thanks.
> If you find an issue, please let me know. Works fine for me. Have you
> tried? :-)
No, I was just looking at the code, and misread it.
>>> +unsigned gpio_block_get(const struct gpio_block *block)
>>> +{
>>> + struct gpio_block_chip *gbc;
>>> + int i, j;
>>> + unsigned values = 0;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < block->nchip; i++) {
>>> + unsigned remapped = 0;
>>> +
>>> + gbc = &block->gbc[i];
>>> +
>>> + if (gbc->gc->get_block) {
>>> + remapped = gbc->gc->get_block(gbc->gc, gbc->mask);
>>> + } else { /* emulate */
>>> + unsigned bit = 1;
>>> +
>>> + for (j = 0; j < sizeof(unsigned) * 8; j++, bit <<= 1) {
>>> + if (gbc->mask & bit)
>>
>> A proper bitmask might be more ideal for this. It would remove the
>> sizeof(unsigned) restriction and allow you to use for_each_set_bit for
>> these loops.
>
> In a previous version of these patches, I actually had a generic bit
> mask which was in turn awkward to handle, especially for the bit
> remapping. Stijn brought me to the idea that for pragmatic reasons, 32
> bit access is fully sufficient in most cases.
>
> I also needed userland access (via sysfs), so there was no way of
> accessing a block except via an int.
>
> When there are GPIO drivers where we seriously need (and can handle
> simultaneously) more than 32 bits, we can still extend the API. For now,
> the cases where it is used is typically creating 8/16/32 bit busses with
> GPIO lines, and on 64bit architectures even 64bit busses.
>
> For this, the current API is working fine, even enabling userland access
> via sysfs.
Fair enough. I didn't see the first round of patches. You probably can
still use for_each_set_bit though (maybe convert the mask to unsigned
long first to match the bitops API):
for_each_set_bit(j, &gbc->mask, BITS_PER_LONG)
...
>>> + unsigned bit = 1;
>>> +
>>> + for (j = 0; j < sizeof(unsigned) * 8; j++, bit <<= 1) {
>>> + if (gbc->mask & bit)
>>> + gbc->gc->set(gbc->gc, gbc->gc->base + j,
>>> + (remapped >> j) & 1);
>>> + }
>>
>> This doesn't clear pins which are set to zero?
>
> It does. gbc->mask only masks which bits to set and clear. remapped
> contains the actual bit values to set. 0 or 1.
Ugh, for some reason I was thinking that the gpio set function only
drove bits that were set in the mask (and had an analogous clear
function). Ignore me :-).
~Ryan
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list