[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaNbTj+hXtNFZ6DqosHPfHg2G+X2Cb_S_15mULpdebgrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:58:00 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gpio: vf610: add gpiolib/IRQ chip driver for Vybird
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
> Add a gpiolib and IRQ chip driver for Vybrid ARM SoC using the
> Vybrid's GPIO and PORT module. The driver is instanced once per
> each GPIO/PORT module pair and handles 32 GPIO's.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
(...)
> obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_UCB1400) += gpio-ucb1400.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_VF610) += gpio-vf610.o
Some like to keep GPIOs tightly associated with a pin controller
in a file next to the pin controller.
I.e. in drivers/pinctrl/freescale/gpio-vf610.c
But this works too. Any preference?
> +#define GPIO_PER_PORT 32
Very generic define. VF610_GPIOS_PER_PORT?
> +struct vf610_gpio_port {
> + struct gpio_chip gc;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + void __iomem *gpio_base;
> + u8 irqc[GPIO_PER_PORT];
> + int irq;
irq? Why do you need to keep this around?
> +static const struct of_device_id vf610_gpio_dt_ids[] = {
> + { .compatible = "fsl,vf610-gpio" },
> + { /* sentinel */ }
> +};
> +
> +static inline void vf610_gpio_writel(u32 val, void __iomem *reg)
> +{
> + __raw_writel(val, reg);
Use writel_relaxed() instead unless you can explain why you want this.
(Same for all occurences.)
> +static int vf610_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio)
> +{
> + struct vf610_gpio_port *port =
> + container_of(gc, struct vf610_gpio_port, gc);
> +
> + return !!(vf610_gpio_readl(port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDIR) & 1 << gpio);
#include <linux/bitops.h>
... & BIT(gpio)
> +static void vf610_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio, int val)
> +{
> + struct vf610_gpio_port *port =
> + container_of(gc, struct vf610_gpio_port, gc);
> + unsigned long mask = 1 << gpio;
= BIT(gpio);
> +static void vf610_gpio_irq_handler(u32 irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
> +{
> + struct vf610_gpio_port *port = irq_get_handler_data(irq);
> + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
> + int pin;
> + unsigned long irq_isfr;
> +
> + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
> +
> + irq_isfr = vf610_gpio_readl(port->base + PORT_ISFR);
> +
> + for_each_set_bit(pin, &irq_isfr, GPIO_PER_PORT) {
> + vf610_gpio_writel(1 << pin, port->base + PORT_ISFR);
BIT(pin)
(etc)
> + port->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(pdev->dev.of_node, 0);
> + if (port->irq == NO_IRQ)
> + return -ENODEV;
Can't you just use a local int irq; variable for this?
> +static int __init gpio_vf610_init(void)
> +{
> + return platform_driver_register(&vf610_gpio_driver);
> +}
> +postcore_initcall(gpio_vf610_init);
postcore again. I don't like this, can you get rid of it?
Overall the driver looks very nice except for these nitty gritty details.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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