[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ves-+6pj_LZccxkKugXxJ9NJUwSotSCRf6=aOveBOx=Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:51:01 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxarm@...wei.com, haifeng.wei@...wei.com,
charles.chenxin@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode and
add acpi binding
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:
> This patch switches device node to fwnode and adds acpi
> binding. As a result, DT and acpi bingdings are compatible
> for this driver.
I'm not sure it makes sense to add ACPI binding here. It more logical
to me to add them in patch 2/2.
And I see that it touches different subsystems.
>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Due to above and Mika's Ack was only to ACPI parts, I think
you may be split this also to two and we will have clearly logical set:
1. Convert to fwnode
2. Add ACPI bindings
3. ACPI event support.
Does it sound okay to you?
If you do that I give my
Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
to intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c part and
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
to the rest.
> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
> drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> index 597de1e..7a37c65 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> *
> * All enquiries to support@...ochip.com
> */
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
+#include <linux/property.h> instead (see above).
> #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> /* FIXME: for gpio_get_value(), replace this with direct register read */
> #include <linux/gpio.h>
> @@ -496,18 +492,27 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev)
> * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of
> * the IP.
> */
> - if (pp->idx == 0 &&
> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) {
> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0);
> + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 &&
> + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode),
> + "interrupt-controller")) {
> + if (has_acpi_companion(dev) && pp->idx == 0)
> + pp->irq = platform_get_irq(to_platform_device(dev), 0);
> +
To patch 2.
> pp->irq_shared = false;
> pp->gpio_base = -1;
> - pp->name = port_np->full_name;
> +
> + if (dev->of_node)
> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name;
> +
And here you have to provide something in case of default / built-in
device properties.
> + if (has_acpi_companion(dev))
> + pp->name = acpi_dev_name(to_acpi_device_node(fwnode));
To patch 2.
> }
>
> return pdata;
> @@ -580,6 +585,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id dwapb_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dwapb_of_match);
>
> +static const struct acpi_device_id dwapb_acpi_match[] = {
> + {"HISI0181", 0},
> + { }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dwapb_acpi_match);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> static int dwapb_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> @@ -674,6 +685,7 @@ static struct platform_driver dwapb_gpio_driver = {
> .name = "gpio-dwapb",
> .pm = &dwapb_gpio_pm_ops,
> .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(dwapb_of_match),
> + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(dwapb_acpi_match),
> },
> .probe = dwapb_gpio_probe,
> .remove = dwapb_gpio_remove,
Ditto to the above hunks.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists