linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] pinctrl: at91: add option to use drive strength bits

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:46:01 +0000
From:   <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To:     <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] pinctrl: at91: add option to use drive strength
 bits

On 06.02.2019 12:24, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:46:28AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06.02.2019 10:13, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Claudiu Beznea - M18063 wrote:
>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>>>>
>>>> SAM9X60 uses high and low drive strengths. To implement this, in
>>>> at91_pinctrl_mux_ops::set_drivestrength and
>>>> at91_pinctrl_mux_ops::get_drivestrength we need bit numbers of
>>>> drive strengths (1 for low, 2 for high), thus change the code to
>>>> allow the usage of drive strength bit numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>>>> index 3d49bbbcdbc7..31f06dafca2e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
>>>> @@ -72,10 +72,15 @@ static int gpio_banks;
>>>>   * DRIVE_STRENGTH_DEFAULT is just a placeholder to avoid changing the drive
>>>>   * strength when there is no dt config for it.
>>>>   */
>>>> -#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_DEFAULT		(0 << DRIVE_STRENGTH_SHIFT)
>>>> -#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_LOW          (1 << DRIVE_STRENGTH_SHIFT)
>>>> -#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_MED          (2 << DRIVE_STRENGTH_SHIFT)
>>>> -#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_HI           (3 << DRIVE_STRENGTH_SHIFT)
>>>> +enum drive_strength_bit {
>>>> +	DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_DEF,
>>>> +	DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_LOW,
>>>> +	DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MED,
>>>> +	DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_HI,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(name)	(DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_##name << \
>>>> +					 DRIVE_STRENGTH_SHIFT)
>>>>  
>>>>  /**
>>>>   * struct at91_pmx_func - describes AT91 pinmux functions
>>>> @@ -551,7 +556,7 @@ static unsigned at91_mux_sama5d3_get_drivestrength(void __iomem *pio,
>>>>  	/* SAMA5 strength is 1:1 with our defines,
>>>>  	 * except 0 is equivalent to low per datasheet */
>>>>  	if (!tmp)
>>>> -		tmp = DRIVE_STRENGTH_LOW;
>>>> +		tmp = DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(LOW);
>>>>  
>>>>  	return tmp;
>>>>  }
>>>> @@ -564,7 +569,7 @@ static unsigned at91_mux_sam9x5_get_drivestrength(void __iomem *pio,
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* strength is inverse in SAM9x5s hardware with the pinctrl defines
>>>>  	 * hardware: 0 = hi, 1 = med, 2 = low, 3 = rsvd */
>>>> -	tmp = DRIVE_STRENGTH_HI - tmp;
>>>> +	tmp = DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(HI) - tmp;
>>>>  
>>>>  	return tmp;
>>>>  }
>>>> @@ -600,7 +605,7 @@ static void at91_mux_sam9x5_set_drivestrength(void __iomem *pio, unsigned pin,
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* strength is inverse on SAM9x5s with our defines
>>>>  	 * 0 = hi, 1 = med, 2 = low, 3 = rsvd */
>>>> -	setting = DRIVE_STRENGTH_HI - setting;
>>>> +	setting = DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(HI) - setting;
>>>>  
>>>>  	set_drive_strength(pio + at91sam9x5_get_drive_register(pin), pin,
>>>>  				setting);
>>>> @@ -959,11 +964,11 @@ static int at91_pinconf_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>>>  	}					\
>>>>  } while (0)
>>>>  
>>>> -#define DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(mask,flag) do {	\
>>>> +#define DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(mask,flag,name) do {	\
>>>
>>> checkpatch error: space required
>>
>> I'm aware of that but I added it in the way it was previously (were the
>> checkpatch error was still present). Please let me know if you want me to
>> send a new version fixing this.
> 
> I think it's the opportunity to fix it. If you can resend a new version
> including my ack.

Sure!

Thanks,
Claudiu

> 
> Regards
> 
> Ludovic
> 
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Claudiu Beznea
>>
>>>
>>>>  	if ((config & mask) == flag) {		\
>>>>  		if (num_conf)			\
>>>>  			seq_puts(s, "|");	\
>>>> -		seq_puts(s, #flag);		\
>>>> +		seq_puts(s, #name);		\
>>>>  		num_conf++;			\
>>>>  	}					\
>>>>  } while (0)
>>>> @@ -981,9 +986,12 @@ static void at91_pinconf_dbg_show(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>>>  	DBG_SHOW_FLAG(PULL_DOWN);
>>>>  	DBG_SHOW_FLAG(DIS_SCHMIT);
>>>>  	DBG_SHOW_FLAG(DEGLITCH);
>>>> -	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_LOW);
>>>> -	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_MED);
>>>> -	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_HI);
>>>> +	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(LOW),
>>>> +			     DRIVE_STRENGTH_LOW);
>>>> +	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(MED),
>>>> +			     DRIVE_STRENGTH_MED);
>>>> +	DBG_SHOW_FLAG_MASKED(DRIVE_STRENGTH, DRIVE_STRENGTH_BIT_MSK(HI),
>>>> +			     DRIVE_STRENGTH_HI);
>>>>  	DBG_SHOW_FLAG(DEBOUNCE);
>>>>  	if (config & DEBOUNCE) {
>>>>  		val = config >> DEBOUNCE_VAL_SHIFT;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

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