[PATCH v2 2/9] pinctrl: single: support gpio request and free
Haojian Zhuang
haojian.zhuang at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 21:58:16 EDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> * Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang at gmail.com> [121022 09:11]:
>> Marvell's PXA/MMP silicon also match the behavior of pinctrl-single.
>> Each pin binds to one register. A lot of pins could be configured
>> as gpio.
>>
>> Now add three properties in below.
>> pinctrl-single,gpio-ranges: gpio range array
>> pinctrl-single,gpio: <gpio base, npins in range, pin base in range>
>> pinctrl-single,gpio-func: <gpio function value in mux>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> index 726a729..6a0b24b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> @@ -28,8 +28,10 @@
>> #define DRIVER_NAME "pinctrl-single"
>> #define PCS_MUX_PINS_NAME "pinctrl-single,pins"
>> #define PCS_MUX_BITS_NAME "pinctrl-single,bits"
>> +#define PCS_GPIO_FUNC_NAME "pinctrl-single,gpio-func"
>
> I think we can now get rid of these defines, I initially added
> them as we had a bit hard time finding a suitable name for the
> driver. These are only used in one location, so let's not add
> new ones here.
>
I'll fix.
>> static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>> - struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset)
>> + struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned pin)
>> {
>> - return -ENOTSUPP;
>> + struct pcs_device *pcs = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
>> + struct pcs_gpio_range *gpio = NULL;
>> + int end, mux_bytes;
>> + unsigned data;
>> +
>> + gpio = container_of(range, struct pcs_gpio_range, range);
>> + if (!gpio->func_en)
>> + return 0;
>> + end = range->pin_base + range->npins - 1;
>> + if (pin < range->pin_base || pin > end) {
>> + dev_err(pctldev->dev, "pin %d isn't in the range of "
>> + "%d to %d\n", pin, range->pin_base, end);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> + data = pcs_readl(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
>> + data |= gpio->gpio_func;
>> + pcs_writel(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> I think I already commented on this one.. Is this safe if you don't
> have GPIOs configured? Or should you return -ENODEV in that case?
>
OK. I'll use ENOTSUPP instead.
+ gpio = container_of(range, struct pcs_gpio_range, range);
+ if (!gpio->func_en)
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
>> +static int __devinit pcs_add_gpio_range(struct device_node *node,
>> + struct pcs_device *pcs)
>> +{
>> + struct pcs_gpio_range *gpio;
>> + struct device_node *np;
>> + const __be32 *list;
>> + const char list_name[] = "pinctrl-single,gpio-ranges";
>> + const char name[] = "pinctrl-single";
>> + u32 gpiores[PCS_MAX_GPIO_VALUES];
>> + int ret, size, i, mux_bytes = 0;
>> +
>> + list = of_get_property(node, list_name, &size);
>> + if (!list)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>
> Here you should return 0 if not found, otherwise things go bad for
> me at least as I don't have GPIOs configured. See more below.
>
OK. Use return 0 instead.
>> + gpio->range.name = kmemdup(name, sizeof(name), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + pinctrl_add_gpio_range(pcs->pctl, &gpio->range);
>
> Just checking.. These get released with pinctrl_unregister() when
> unloading, right? And nothing else to free in pinctrl-single.c
> either?
>
I'll fix.
>> @@ -975,6 +1061,10 @@ static int __devinit pcs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto free;
>> }
>>
>> + ret = pcs_add_gpio_range(np, pcs);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>
> Here you need to goto free on error. Maybe just fold in the
> attached fix if that looks OK to you:
>
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -930,7 +930,7 @@ static int __devinit pcs_add_gpio_range(struct device_node *node,
>
> list = of_get_property(node, list_name, &size);
> if (!list)
> - return -ENOENT;
> + return 0;
> size = size / sizeof(*list);
> for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> np = of_parse_phandle(node, list_name, i);
> @@ -1065,7 +1065,7 @@ static int __devinit pcs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ret = pcs_add_gpio_range(np, pcs);
> if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + goto free;
>
> dev_info(pcs->dev, "%i pins at pa %p size %u\n",
> pcs->desc.npins, pcs->base, pcs->size);
I'll take your fix into this patch.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list