[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfxG+fyjskTwzQ-5Rh7vPbTuFQCnf=N9XV+TZBf7k6d-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:21:56 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wenhua lin <wenhua.lin1994@...il.com>,
Xiongpeng Wu <xiongpeng.wu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] gpio: pmic-eic-sprd: Two-dimensional arrays
maintain pmic eic
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 2:27 PM Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com> wrote:
>
> A bank PMIC EIC contains 16 EICs, and the operating registers
> are BIT0-BIT15, such as BIT0 of the register operated by EIC0.
> Using the one-dimensional array reg[CACHE_NR_REGS] for maintenance
> will cause the configuration of other EICs to be affected when
> operating a certain EIC. In order to solve this problem, the register
> operation bits of each PMIC EIC are maintained through the two-dimensional
> array reg[SPRD_PMIC_EIC_NR][CACHE_NR_REGS] to avoid mutual interference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> index c3e4d90f6b18..442968bb2490 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ struct sprd_pmic_eic {
> struct gpio_chip chip;
> struct regmap *map;
> u32 offset;
> - u8 reg[CACHE_NR_REGS];
> + u8 reg[SPRD_PMIC_EIC_NR][CACHE_NR_REGS];
> struct mutex buslock;
> int irq;
> };
> @@ -151,8 +151,8 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *data)
> struct sprd_pmic_eic *pmic_eic = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> u32 offset = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
>
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] = 0;
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG] = 0;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE] = 0;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG] = 0;
>
> gpiochip_disable_irq(chip, offset);
> }
> @@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
>
> gpiochip_enable_irq(chip, offset);
>
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] = 1;
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG] = 1;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE] = 1;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG] = 1;
> }
>
> static int sprd_pmic_eic_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data,
> @@ -174,13 +174,14 @@ static int sprd_pmic_eic_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data,
> {
> struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> struct sprd_pmic_eic *pmic_eic = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> + u32 offset = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
>
> switch (flow_type) {
> case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV] = 1;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV] = 1;
> break;
> case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV] = 0;
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV] = 0;
> break;
> case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
> case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
> @@ -222,15 +223,15 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_bus_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)
> sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IEV, 1);
> } else {
> sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IEV,
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV]);
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV]);
> }
>
> /* Set irq unmask */
> sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IE,
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE]);
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE]);
> /* Generate trigger start pulse for debounce EIC */
> sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_TRIG,
> - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG]);
> + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG]);
>
> mutex_unlock(&pmic_eic->buslock);
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
This looks good to me but I want to let the SPRD maintainers
review/test it before applying.
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists