linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Extend support for lan966x

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211101084213.r5fgmkscyemjfdcj@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:42:13 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com>
CC:     <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Extend support for lan966x

Hi Kavya,

The 11/01/2021 12:16, Kavyasree Kotagiri wrote:
> This patch extends pinctrl-ocelot driver to support also the
> lan966x. Register layout is same as ocelot. It has 78 GPIOs.
> Requires 3 registers ALT0, ALT1, ALT2 to configure ALT mode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c | 416 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 416 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> index 0a36ec8775a3..751eb38f93da 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
> @@ -57,16 +57,71 @@ enum {
>  #define OCELOT_FUNC_PER_PIN	4
>  
> +	LAN966X_PIN(68),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(69),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(70),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(71),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(72),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(73),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(74),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(75),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(76),
> +	LAN966X_PIN(77),
> +};
> +
> +

Here is an extra new line.

>  static int ocelot_get_functions_count(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev)
>  {
>  	return ARRAY_SIZE(ocelot_function_names);
> @@ -709,6 +1056,9 @@ static int ocelot_pin_function_idx(struct ocelot_pinctrl *info,
>  	for (i = 0; i < OCELOT_FUNC_PER_PIN; i++) {
>  		if (function == p->functions[i])
>  			return i;
> +
> +		if (function == p->a_functions[i])
> +			return i + OCELOT_FUNC_PER_PIN;
>  	}
>  
>  	return -1;
> @@ -744,6 +1094,36 @@ static int ocelot_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

> +
>  static int ocelot_pctl_get_groups_count(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev)
>  {
>  	struct ocelot_pinctrl *info = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> @@ -1074,6 +1480,14 @@ static struct pinctrl_desc sparx5_desc = {
>  	.npins = ARRAY_SIZE(sparx5_pins),
>  	.pctlops = &ocelot_pctl_ops,
>  	.pmxops = &ocelot_pmx_ops,
> +};
> +
> +static struct pinctrl_desc lan966x_desc = {
> +	.name = "lan966x-pinctrl",
> +	.pins = lan966x_pins,
> +	.npins = ARRAY_SIZE(lan966x_pins),
> +	.pctlops = &ocelot_pctl_ops,
> +	.pmxops = &lan966x_pmx_ops,

This change removes .confops and .owner from sparx5 which is a mistake.

>  	.confops = &ocelot_confops,
>  	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
>  };
> @@ -1114,6 +1528,7 @@ static int ocelot_create_group_func_map(struct device *dev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +

Here is an extra new line.

>  static int ocelot_pinctrl_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  				   struct ocelot_pinctrl *info)
>  {
> @@ -1337,6 +1752,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id ocelot_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "mscc,ocelot-pinctrl", .data = &ocelot_desc },
>  	{ .compatible = "mscc,jaguar2-pinctrl", .data = &jaguar2_desc },
>  	{ .compatible = "microchip,sparx5-pinctrl", .data = &sparx5_desc },
> +	{ .compatible = "microchip,lan966x-pinctrl", .data = &lan966x_desc },
>  	{},
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

-- 
/Horatiu