From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
Benoit Parrot <bparrot@ti.com>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:38:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10481403.sNoQCGtpkA@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435650327-2542-8-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be>
Hi Geert,
Thank you for the patch.
On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:27 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Legacy function GPIOs are no longer used on ARM since commit
> a27c5cd1a08cc95c ("sh-pfc: sh73a0: Remove function GPIOs").
> Extract its setup code into a separate function, and make all function
> GPIO related code and data depend on CONFIG_SUPERH.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> Compile-tested on sh using se7724_defconfig.
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h | 2 ++
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> index 4c3c37bf7161804d..c38ace46d7111b0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ struct sh_pfc {
> unsigned int nr_gpio_pins;
>
> struct sh_pfc_chip *gpio;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> struct sh_pfc_chip *func;
> +#endif
>
> struct sh_pfc_pinctrl *pinctrl;
> };
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> index 30654e800580524d..15f4eea186e2ba56 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static int gpio_pin_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
> * Function GPIOs
> */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
> {
> static bool __print_once;
> @@ -330,6 +331,31 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
> *chip) return 0;
> }
>
> +static int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
> +
> + if (!pfc->info->nr_func_gpios)
> + return 0;
> +
> + chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(chip))
> + return PTR_ERR(chip);
> +
> + pfc->func = chip;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) { return 0;
> }
> +static inline int sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) {
> return 0; }
Given that those functions are only called from a single location, would it
make sense to just compile the calls conditionally instead ? I would find that
slightly more readable as it would be more explicit.
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- * Register/unregister
> */
> @@ -397,22 +423,13 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> }
>
> /* Register the function GPIOs chip. */
> - if (pfc->info->nr_func_gpios == 0)
> - return 0;
> -
> - chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(chip))
> - return PTR_ERR(chip);
> -
> - pfc->func = chip;
> -
> - return 0;
> + return sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(pfc);
> }
>
> int sh_pfc_unregister_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> {
> gpiochip_remove(&pfc->gpio->gpio_chip);
> - gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> + sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(pfc);
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h index c7508d5f688613b2..c6f9163b3e23041f
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> @@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
> const struct sh_pfc_function *functions;
> unsigned int nr_functions;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> const struct pinmux_func *func_gpios;
> unsigned int nr_func_gpios;
> +#endif
>
> const struct pinmux_cfg_reg *cfg_regs;
> const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:38:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10481403.sNoQCGtpkA@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435650327-2542-8-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be>
Hi Geert,
Thank you for the patch.
On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:27 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Legacy function GPIOs are no longer used on ARM since commit
> a27c5cd1a08cc95c ("sh-pfc: sh73a0: Remove function GPIOs").
> Extract its setup code into a separate function, and make all function
> GPIO related code and data depend on CONFIG_SUPERH.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> Compile-tested on sh using se7724_defconfig.
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h | 2 ++
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> index 4c3c37bf7161804d..c38ace46d7111b0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ struct sh_pfc {
> unsigned int nr_gpio_pins;
>
> struct sh_pfc_chip *gpio;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> struct sh_pfc_chip *func;
> +#endif
>
> struct sh_pfc_pinctrl *pinctrl;
> };
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> index 30654e800580524d..15f4eea186e2ba56 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static int gpio_pin_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
> * Function GPIOs
> */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
> {
> static bool __print_once;
> @@ -330,6 +331,31 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
> *chip) return 0;
> }
>
> +static int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
> +
> + if (!pfc->info->nr_func_gpios)
> + return 0;
> +
> + chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(chip))
> + return PTR_ERR(chip);
> +
> + pfc->func = chip;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) { return 0;
> }
> +static inline int sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) {
> return 0; }
Given that those functions are only called from a single location, would it
make sense to just compile the calls conditionally instead ? I would find that
slightly more readable as it would be more explicit.
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- * Register/unregister
> */
> @@ -397,22 +423,13 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> }
>
> /* Register the function GPIOs chip. */
> - if (pfc->info->nr_func_gpios = 0)
> - return 0;
> -
> - chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(chip))
> - return PTR_ERR(chip);
> -
> - pfc->func = chip;
> -
> - return 0;
> + return sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(pfc);
> }
>
> int sh_pfc_unregister_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> {
> gpiochip_remove(&pfc->gpio->gpio_chip);
> - gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> + sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(pfc);
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h index c7508d5f688613b2..c6f9163b3e23041f
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> @@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
> const struct sh_pfc_function *functions;
> unsigned int nr_functions;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> const struct pinmux_func *func_gpios;
> unsigned int nr_func_gpios;
> +#endif
>
> const struct pinmux_cfg_reg *cfg_regs;
> const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:38:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10481403.sNoQCGtpkA@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435650327-2542-8-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be>
Hi Geert,
Thank you for the patch.
On Tuesday 30 June 2015 09:45:27 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Legacy function GPIOs are no longer used on ARM since commit
> a27c5cd1a08cc95c ("sh-pfc: sh73a0: Remove function GPIOs").
> Extract its setup code into a separate function, and make all function
> GPIO related code and data depend on CONFIG_SUPERH.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> Compile-tested on sh using se7724_defconfig.
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h | 2 ++
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> index 4c3c37bf7161804d..c38ace46d7111b0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ struct sh_pfc {
> unsigned int nr_gpio_pins;
>
> struct sh_pfc_chip *gpio;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> struct sh_pfc_chip *func;
> +#endif
>
> struct sh_pfc_pinctrl *pinctrl;
> };
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> index 30654e800580524d..15f4eea186e2ba56 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/gpio.c
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static int gpio_pin_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip *chip)
> * Function GPIOs
> */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> static int gpio_function_request(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
> {
> static bool __print_once;
> @@ -330,6 +331,31 @@ static int gpio_function_setup(struct sh_pfc_chip
> *chip) return 0;
> }
>
> +static int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + struct sh_pfc_chip *chip;
> +
> + if (!pfc->info->nr_func_gpios)
> + return 0;
> +
> + chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(chip))
> + return PTR_ERR(chip);
> +
> + pfc->func = chip;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> +{
> + gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline int sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) { return 0;
> }
> +static inline int sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(struct sh_pfc *pfc) {
> return 0; }
Given that those functions are only called from a single location, would it
make sense to just compile the calls conditionally instead ? I would find that
slightly more readable as it would be more explicit.
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- * Register/unregister
> */
> @@ -397,22 +423,13 @@ int sh_pfc_register_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> }
>
> /* Register the function GPIOs chip. */
> - if (pfc->info->nr_func_gpios == 0)
> - return 0;
> -
> - chip = sh_pfc_add_gpiochip(pfc, gpio_function_setup, NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(chip))
> - return PTR_ERR(chip);
> -
> - pfc->func = chip;
> -
> - return 0;
> + return sh_pfc_add_function_gpios(pfc);
> }
>
> int sh_pfc_unregister_gpiochip(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> {
> gpiochip_remove(&pfc->gpio->gpio_chip);
> - gpiochip_remove(&pfc->func->gpio_chip);
> + sh_pfc_remove_function_gpios(pfc);
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h index c7508d5f688613b2..c6f9163b3e23041f
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
> @@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
> const struct sh_pfc_function *functions;
> unsigned int nr_functions;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUPERH
> const struct pinmux_func *func_gpios;
> unsigned int nr_func_gpios;
> +#endif
>
> const struct pinmux_cfg_reg *cfg_regs;
> const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-30 7:45 [PATCH 0/7] ARM: shmobile: Move gpio ranges from C code to DT Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 1/7] ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:49 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:49 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:49 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-07-14 12:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-14 12:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-14 12:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-16 9:42 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-16 9:42 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-16 9:42 ` Linus Walleij
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 2/7] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740 " Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 3/7] ARM: shmobile: sh73a0 " Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 4/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Stop calling gpiochip_add_pin_range() on DT platforms Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:54 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:54 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:54 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 5/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Remove empty gpio_function_free() Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:34 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:34 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:34 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 6/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Move sh_pfc_add_gpiochip() up Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:35 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:35 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:35 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 7:45 ` [PATCH 7/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Confine legacy function GPIOs to SH Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:38 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2015-06-30 9:38 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:38 ` Laurent Pinchart
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-30 9:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-16 9:00 ` [PATCH 0/7] ARM: shmobile: Move gpio ranges from C code to DT Linus Walleij
2015-07-16 9:00 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-16 9:00 ` Linus Walleij
2015-07-16 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-16 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-16 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10481403.sNoQCGtpkA@avalon \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=bparrot@ti.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.