[PATCH] gpio: Device tree support for LPC32xx

Grant Likely grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Tue Apr 3 11:04:30 EDT 2012


On Tue,  3 Apr 2012 00:58:33 +0200, Roland Stigge <stigge at antcom.de> wrote:
> This patch adds device tree support for gpio-lpc32xx.c
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge at antcom.de>
> 
> ---
> 
>  Applies to v3.4-rc1
> 
>  Can add this patch to the LPC32xx series for an update, if necessary.
> 
>  Thanks to Arnd Bergmann for the help with registering GPIO via OF!

Hi Roland,

Comments below.

> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio_lpc32xx.txt |   71 ++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/gpio.h               |    9 +-
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c                             |   45 +++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> --- /dev/null
> +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio_lpc32xx.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
> +NXP LPC32xx SoC GPIO controller
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: "nxp,lpc32xx-gpio"
> +- reg: Physical base address and length of the controller's registers.
> +- #address-cells: For indexing of the subnodes (GPIO groups of the SoC)
> +- #size-cells: Always 0
> +- #gpio-cells: Should be two. The first cell is the pin number and the
> +  second cell is used to specify optional parameters:
> +  - bit 0 specifies polarity (0 for normal, 1 for inverted)

Having #gpio-cells in the parent node doesn't make much sense when it
looks like the users reference the child node banks directly and which
have their own #gpio-cells properties.

> +
> +Required properties of sub-nodes which describe the GPIO groups of LPC32xx:
> +- gpio-controller: Marks the device node as a GPIO controller.
> +- #gpio-cells: Should be two. The first cell is the pin number and the
> +  second cell is used to specify optional parameters:
> +  - bit 0 specifies polarity (0 for normal, 1 for inverted)
> +- reg: Index of the GPIO group
> +- gpio-lines: Number of GPIOs in that subnode/GPIO group

The driver doesn't appear to be using the gpio-lines property.  Is it
really necessary?

> +
> +Example:
> +
> +	gpio: gpio at 40028000 {
> +		compatible = "nxp,lpc32xx-gpio";
> +		reg = <0x40028000 0x1000>;
> +		/* create a private address space for enumeration */
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <0>;
> +		#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +
> +		gpio_p0: gpio-bank at 0 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <8>;
> +			reg = <0>;
> +		};
> +
> +		gpio_p1: gpio-bank at 1 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <24>;
> +			reg = <1>;
> +		};
> +
> +		gpio_p2: gpio-bank at 2 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <13>;
> +			reg = <2>;
> +		};
> +
> +		gpio_p3: gpio-bank at 3 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <6>;
> +			reg = <3>;
> +		};
> +
> +		gpi_p3: gpio-bank at 4 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <28>;
> +			reg = <4>;
> +		};
> +
> +		gpo_p3: gpio-bank at 5 {
> +			gpio-controller;
> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
> +			gpio-lines = <24>;
> +			reg = <5>;
> +		};
> +	};
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/gpio.h
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/gpio.h
> @@ -1 +1,8 @@
> -/* empty */
> +#ifndef __MACH_GPIO_H
> +#define __MACH_GPIO_H
> +
> +#include "gpio-lpc32xx.h"
> +
> +#define ARCH_NR_GPIOS (LPC32XX_GPO_P3_GRP + LPC32XX_GPO_P3_MAX)
> +
> +#endif /* __MACH_GPIO_H */
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>  #include <linux/gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
>  
>  #include <mach/hardware.h>
>  #include <mach/platform.h>
> @@ -454,10 +457,44 @@ static struct lpc32xx_gpio_chip lpc32xx_
>  	},
>  };
>  
> -void __init lpc32xx_gpio_init(void)
> +static int __devinit lpc32xx_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -	int i;
> +	struct device_node *node;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lpc32xx_gpiochip); i++)
> -		gpiochip_add(&lpc32xx_gpiochip[i].chip);
> +	for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, node) {
> +		if (of_device_is_available(node)) {
> +			u32 index;
> +			struct gpio_chip *chip;
> +			if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &index) < 0)
> +				continue;
> +			if (index >= ARRAY_SIZE(lpc32xx_gpiochip))
> +				continue;
> +			chip = &lpc32xx_gpiochip[index].chip;
> +			chip->of_node = of_node_get(node);
> +			gpiochip_add(chip);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +static struct of_device_id lpc32xx_gpio_of_match[] __devinitdata = {
> +	{ .compatible = "nxp,lpc32xx-gpio", },
> +	{ },
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver lpc32xx_gpio_driver = {
> +	.driver		= {
> +		.name	= "lpc32xx-gpio",
> +		.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table = lpc32xx_gpio_of_match,
> +	},
> +	.probe		= lpc32xx_gpio_probe,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init lpc32xx_gpio_init(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&lpc32xx_gpio_driver);
> +}
> +postcore_initcall(lpc32xx_gpio_init);

module_platform_driver() please.  Also, now that deferred probe is
merged, there should no longer be any need to mess around with
initcall levels to get gpio drivers probed early.

g.




More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list