Re: [PATCH] gpio: add Penwell gpio support

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:40:25 +0800
"Du, Alek" <alek.du@intel.com> wrote:

> >From 963f6e83843b0f94f8a5337def6e897ec5bb99bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alek Du <alek.du@intel.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:32:46 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] gpio: add Penwell gpio support
> 
> Intel Penwell chip has two 96 pins GPIO blocks, which are very similiar as
> Intel Langwell chip GPIO block, except for pin number difference. This
> patch expends the original Langwell GPIO driver to support Penwell's.
> 

Has the driver been retested on Moorestown?

> -static int lnw_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +static inline void __iomem *gpio_reg(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
> +			enum GPIO_REG reg_type)
>  {
>  	struct lnw_gpio *lnw = container_of(chip, struct lnw_gpio, chip);
> +	unsigned nreg = chip->ngpio / 32;
>  	u8 reg = offset / 32;
> -	void __iomem *gplr;
> +	void __iomem *ptr;
> +
> +	ptr = (void __iomem *)(lnw->reg_base + reg_type * nreg * 4 + reg * 4);
> +	return ptr;
> +}

inlining this function was probably the wrong thing to do.  But modern
gcc's often just ignore the `inline' and do the right thing anyway.


> -static struct pci_device_id lnw_gpio_ids[] = {
> -	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x080f) },
> +static struct pci_device_id lnw_gpio_ids[] = {      /* pin number */
> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x080f), .driver_data = 64 },
> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x081f), .driver_data = 96 },
> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x081a), .driver_data = 96 },
>  	{ 0, }

I suppose we should be using DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE() here.