[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EDF7FA02-C79C-4ADF-A10C-F8C4DBFE5158@goldelico.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:00:04 +0200
From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>, kernel@...a-handheld.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] gpio: pca953x: add register definitions for pcal6524 and fix address calculation
Hi Andy,
> Am 10.04.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:07 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> wrote:
>> PCAL chips ("L" seems to stand for "latched") have additional
>> registers starting at address 0x40 to control the latches,
>> interrupt mask, pull-up and pull down etc.
>>
>> The constants are so far defined in a way that they fit for
>> the pcal9555a when shifted by the number of banks, i.e. multiplied
>> by 2.
>>
>> Now the pcal6524 has 3 banks which means the relative offset
>> must be multiplied by 4 which gives a wrong result if not done
>> carefully, since the base offset is already included in the offset.
>>
>> For the basic registers shared with all pca93xx/tca64xx chips
>> there is no such offset.
>>
>> Therefore, we add code to adjust the register number for exended
>> registers to the 24 bit accessor functions.
>>
>> And we add additional register offset constants (not yet used by
>> the driver code) which are specific to the pcal6524.
>>
>
> First of all, as I said, please split this to two patches. Don't mix the things.
Ok. Queued for v4.
>
>
>> + /* adjust register address for pcal6524 */
>> + if (reg >= PCAL953X_OUT_STRENGTH)
>> + reg -= PCAL953X_OUT_STRENGTH >> 1;
>> +
>
> Give me some days to think about it.
No problem. I'll wait with v4.
The only alternative I would see is to add new accessor function
pointers for the extended registers and have 0x00 based offsets,
but that is IMHO more ugly.
BR and thanks,
Nikolaus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists