[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1360967181.24923.3.camel@gitbox>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:26:21 +1300
From: Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: gpio: vt8500: Add pin control driver for
Wondermedia SoCs
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 21:27 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hm some of these remarks would apply to the BCM2835 driver as
> well, I missed to complain at the time it was added. Probably I was
> all too excited about the new Raspberry.
>
> Mainly you want Stephens review on this since he wrote the
> driver you based it on...
>
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -1618,10 +1618,10 @@ config LOCAL_TIMERS
> > config ARCH_NR_GPIO
> > int
> > default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA
> > + default 512 if SOC_OMAP5
> > default 355 if ARCH_U8500
> > + default 352 if ARCH_VT8500
> > default 264 if MACH_H4700
> > - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5
> > - default 288 if ARCH_VT8500
> > default 0
>
> This seems like a totally unrelated chunk, put that in some
> other patch and send off to the ARM SoC people if you want
> it changed.
>
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_WMT) += pinctrl-wmt.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_WM8850) += pinctrl-wm8850.o
>
> So one front-end driver and one pluggable SoC-driver
> I guess.
>
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-wm8850.c
> (skipping this file, looks like OK and pure data)
>
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-wmt.c
> (...)
> > +#define WMT_PINCONF_PACK(__param, __arg) ((__param << 16) | __arg)
> > +#define WMT_PINCONF_UNPACK_PARAM(__conf) (__conf >> 16)
> > +#define WMT_PINCONF_UNPACK_ARG(__conf) (__conf & 0xffff)
>
> Please use the generic pinconf helper library, there are no magic
> configurations in this driver. Look at other drivers using generic pinconf
> and get pack/unpack for free and tested.
>
> (then follows a large block of nice, clean code)
>
> > +static int wmt_pinconf_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned pin,
> > + unsigned long config)
> > +{
> > + struct wmt_pinctrl_data *data = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> > + enum wmt_pinconf_param param = WMT_PINCONF_UNPACK_PARAM(config);
> > + u16 arg = WMT_PINCONF_UNPACK_ARG(config);
> > + u32 bank = pin >> 5;
> > + u32 bit = pin & 0x1f;
>
> Comment the two lines above. What kind of magic is happening?
> I can guess, but it's better if it's stated.
>
> (...)
> > +static int wmt_gpio_get_value(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> > +{
> > + struct wmt_pinctrl_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> > + u32 bank = offset >> 5;
> > + u32 bit = offset & 0x1f;
>
> Hm it looks like duplicated code as well. What abot a small
> static inline helper function to do the magic?
>
> > +int wmt_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > + struct wmt_pinctrl_data *data)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > + wmt_desc.pins = data->pins;
> > + wmt_desc.npins = data->npins;
> > +
> > + data->gpio_chip = wmt_gpio_chip;
> > + data->gpio_chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + data->gpio_chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > + data->gpio_chip.ngpio = data->nbanks * 32;
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, data);
> > +
> > + data->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + data->pctl_dev = pinctrl_register(&wmt_desc, &pdev->dev, data);
> > + if (IS_ERR(data->pctl_dev)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register pinctrl\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + err = gpiochip_add(&data->gpio_chip);
> > + if (err) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not add GPIO chip\n");
> > + return err;
> > + }
>
> Nice with gpiochip and pinctrl in the same probe, just as
> it should be.
>
> > +
> > + data->gpio_range = wmt_pinctrl_gpio_range;
> > +
> > + data->gpio_range.gc = &data->gpio_chip;
> > + data->gpio_range.base = data->gpio_chip.base;
> > + data->gpio_range.npins = data->nbanks * 32;
> > + pinctrl_add_gpio_range(data->pctl_dev, &data->gpio_range);
>
> Don't do this. Register ranges from the gpiochip side instead
> of from the pinctrl side of things. This way of doing things is
> deprecated.
>
> Grep for gpiochip_add_pin_range for examples.
>
> When you have this right I guess you could probably
> patch the BCM driver as well since it's so similar.
>
> > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Pin controller initialized\n");
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> (...)
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-wmt.h
>
> Looks OK.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
Thanks for the review.
Re: the Kconfig change for increasing the number of GPIO's - I know this
is out of place, but it was easier to just diff all the changes and sort
out the correct patches later.
I just wanted to get a feel for any problems around the main driver
before I started typing in lines and lines of data... only to be told
the data was bad and needed to be changed :)
Thanks again
Regards
Tony Prisk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists