linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] gpio: davinci: add OF support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+V-a8uSdSMhBaFTbJDwPYz=in2r_STAUzRs+HEwAH1yjBq96Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:58:12 +0530
From:	Prabhakar Lad <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	DLOS <davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	LDOC <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] gpio: davinci: add OF support

Hi Sekhar,

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 11:45 PM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>> From: KV Sujith <sujithkv@...com>
>>
>> This patch adds OF parser support for davinci gpio
>> driver and also appropriate documentation in gpio-davinci.txt
>> located at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/.
>>
>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
>> Signed-off-by: KV Sujith <sujithkv@...com>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Avinash <avinashphilip@...com>
>> [prabhakar.csengg@...il.com: simplified the OF code, removed
>>               unnecessary DT property and also simplified
>>               the commit message]
>> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt      |   41 ++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c                        |   57 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a2e839d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
>> +Davinci GPIO controller bindings
>> +
>> +Required Properties:
>> +- compatible: should be "ti,dm6441-gpio"
>> +
>> +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and the size of memory mapped
>> +       registers.
>> +
>> +- gpio-controller : Marks the device node as a gpio controller.
>> +
>> +- interrupt-parent: phandle of the parent interrupt controller.
>> +
>> +- interrupts: Array of GPIO interrupt number. Only banked or unbanked IRQs are
>> +           supported at a time.
>
> If this is true..
>
>> +
>> +- ti,ngpio: The number of GPIO pins supported.
>> +
>> +- ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked: The number of GPIOs that have an individual interrupt
>> +                          line to processor.
>
> .. then why do you need to maintain this separately? Number of elements
> in interrupts property should give you this answer, no?
>
> There can certainly be devices (past and future) which use a mixture of
> banked and unbanked IRQs. So a binding which does not take care of this
> is likely to change in future and that is a problem since it brings in
> backward compatibility of the binding into picture.
>
> The right thing would be to define the DT node per-bank similar to what
> is done on OMAP rather than for all banks together. That way there can
> be a separate property which determines whether that bank supports
> direct-mapped or banked IRQs (or that could be inferred if the number of
> tuples in the interrupts property is more than one).
>
Can you point me to the OMAP implementation.

Regards,
--Prabhakar Lad
--
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/