[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY632ooGJWVBVAUXdTvFNkFnnadey4LUGh9u+GvMrt=jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:43:16 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ajay Thomas <ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@...el.com>,
Bin Gao <bin.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: add Intel WhiskeyCove GPIO driver
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> This patch introduces a separate GPIO driver for Intel WhiskeyCove PMIC.
> This driver is based on gpio-crystalcove.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ajay Thomas <ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Gao <bin.gao@...el.com>
It is always good to let Mika and Mathias look at new Intel GPIO
drivers, so added them to the To: line.
> +config GPIO_WHISKEY_COVE
> + tristate "GPIO support for Whiskey Cove PMIC"
> + depends on INTEL_SOC_PMIC
> + select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
> + help
> + Support for GPIO pins on Whiskey Cove PMIC.
> +
> + Say Yes if you have a Intel SoC based tablet with Whsikey Cove PMIC
Speling
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
No use just #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/seq_file.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/intel_soc_pmic.h>
> +
> +#define WCOVE_GPIO_NUM 13
> +#define WCOVE_VGPIO_NUM 94
> +
> +#define UPDATE_IRQ_TYPE BIT(0)
> +#define UPDATE_IRQ_MASK BIT(1)
> +
> +#define GPIOIRQ0 0x4e0b
> +#define GPIOIRQ1 0x4e0c
> +#define MGPIOIRQ0 0x4e19
> +#define MGPIOIRQ1 0x4e1a
> +#define GPIO0P0CTLO 0x4e44
> +#define GPIO0P0CTLI 0x4e51
> +#define GPIO1P0CTLO 0x4e4b
> +#define GPIO1P0CTLI 0x4e58
> +#define GPIO2P0CTLO 0x4e4f
> +#define GPIO2P0CTLI 0x4e5c
> +
> +#define CTLI_INTCNT_DIS (0)
> +#define CTLI_INTCNT_NE (1 << 1)
> +#define CTLI_INTCNT_PE (2 << 1)
> +#define CTLI_INTCNT_BE (3 << 1)
> +
> +#define CTLO_DIR_IN (0)
> +#define CTLO_DIR_OUT (1 << 5)
> +
> +#define CTLO_DRV_CMOS (0)
> +#define CTLO_DRV_OD (1 << 4)
That is likely what we call push-pull and open drain driving.
Implement .set_single_ended() for this driver so you can handle
that properly in the driver.
> +#define CTLO_DRV_REN (1 << 3)
> +
> +#define CTLO_RVAL_2KDW (0)
> +#define CTLO_RVAL_2KUP (1 << 1)
> +#define CTLO_RVAL_50KDW (2 << 1)
> +#define CTLO_RVAL_50KUP (3 << 1)
Looks like pull-up settings. That is strictly speaking pin control.
But OK I am trying to find the right way to abstract this without
making GPIO too heavyweight.
> +static inline struct wcove_gpio *to_wg(struct gpio_chip *gc)
> +{
> + return container_of(gc, struct wcove_gpio, chip);
> +}
No don't do that. Use devm_gpiochip_add_data() and just
use gpiochip_get_data() to get the pointer out. Look at any
other driver in the upstream kernel, I think I converted them all.
> +static inline int to_reg(int gpio, enum ctrl_register reg_type)
> +{
> + int reg;
> +
> + if (reg_type == CTRL_IN) {
> + if (gpio < 7)
> + reg = GPIO0P0CTLI + gpio;
> + else if (gpio < 11)
> + reg = GPIO1P0CTLI + (gpio % 7);
> + else
> + reg = GPIO2P0CTLI + (gpio % 11);
> + } else {
> + if (gpio < 7)
> + reg = GPIO0P0CTLO + gpio;
> + else if (gpio < 11)
> + reg = GPIO1P0CTLO + (gpio % 7);
> + else
> + reg = GPIO2P0CTLO + (gpio % 11);
> + }
> +
> + return reg;
> +}
You could add a kerneldoc to this function explaining how these
GPIO registers are laid out.
> +static void wcove_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> + unsigned int gpio, int value)
> +{
> + struct wcove_gpio *wg = to_wg(chip);
> +
> + if (gpio > WCOVE_VGPIO_NUM)
> + return;
gpiolib already protects against this, you can drop it everywhere.
> +static irqreturn_t wcove_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> + struct wcove_gpio *wg = data;
> + unsigned int p0, p1, virq;
> + int pending, gpio;
> +
> + if (regmap_read(wg->regmap, GPIOIRQ0, &p0) ||
> + regmap_read(wg->regmap, GPIOIRQ1, &p1))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
What does this mean? If we fail to read regmaps then
it was not our IRQ?
Should be an error message or something at least I think?
Apart from that it looks all right.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists