From: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>,
linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
linux-samsung-soc
<linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
arm-linux
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: samsung: add devicetree init for s3c24xx arches
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:01:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201208271001.05026.heiko@sntech.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuYYwQBOP7-D0fepDsCr+43ASKQ3CmMBMH-M79QH7r=xS85Eg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your review:
Am Montag, 27. August 2012, 06:20:49 schrieb Thomas Abraham:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On 26 August 2012 03:23, Heiko Stübner <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Until now the Exynos-SoC was the only Samsung-SoC supporting the GPIOs
> > via the device tree. This patch implements dt-support for the
> > s3c24xx arches.
> >
> > The controllers contain only 3 cells, as the underlying gpio controller
> > does not support controlling the drive strength on a gpio level.
> >
> > Tested with the gpio-keys driver on a s3c2416 based machine.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> >
> > .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt | 38 ++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 63
> > ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt index
> > 5375625..ce6a7d4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> >
> > @@ -39,3 +39,41 @@ Example:
> > #gpio-cells = <4>;
> > gpio-controller;
> >
> > };
> >
> > +
> > +
> > +Samsung S3C24XX GPIO Controller
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +- compatible: Compatible property value should be
> > "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio".
>
> This is debatable, but I would choose to be specific here and use
> "samsing,s3c2416-gpio". For instance, SoC's in s3c24xx family have
> differing value for pull none/down/up.
Hmmm, but the logic to drive the gpio controller is the same for all arches.
The only difference is the number to use for the different pull up/down
settings. So I think the "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio" is ok but the documentation
should simply reflect the different pull settings.
> > +
> > +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and length of memory
> > mapped + region.
> > +
> > +- #gpio-cells: Should be 3. The syntax of the gpio specifier used by
> > client nodes + should be the following with values derived from the SoC
> > user manual. + <[phandle of the gpio controller node]
> > + [pin number within the gpio controller]
> > + [mux function]
> > + [flags and pull up/down]
> > +
> > + Values for gpio specifier:
> > + - Pin number: depending on the controller a number from 0 up to 15.
> > + - Flags and Pull Up/Down: 0 - Pull Up/Down Disabled.
> > + 1 - Pull Down Enabled.
> > + 3 - Pull Up Enabled.
>
> As per s3c2416 user manual, 2 is used for Pull Up and 3 is listed as
> reserved value. Any particular reason to use 3 here for pull up and
> not 2 as per the user manual?
Sorry, copy and paste error :-)
> > + Bit 16 (0x00010000) - Input is active low.
> > +
> > +- gpio-controller: Specifies that the node is a gpio controller.
> > +- #address-cells: should be 1.
> > +- #size-cells: should be 1.
>
> It would be informative to add information about the 'mux function'
> cell here as well. Specifically, on how to handle the banks that have
> an extended GPxSEL register that allow additional pin function
> selection.
Will add a mux function description.
Until now I've never realised the existence of the GPxSEL registers, so thanks
for the pointer :-).
But is this used in the driver at all? All the setcfg/getcfg functions in
gpio-samsung.c only handle the GPxCON registers - I haven't found code to
handle the GPxSEL registers at all. So my guess is that this was never
implemented - or that I'm blind ;-) .
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > + gpa: gpio-controller@56000000 {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > + compatible = "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio";
> > + reg = <0x56000000 0x10>;
> > + #gpio-cells = <3>;
> > + gpio-controller;
> > + };
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > index a150d2e..80a2817 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > @@ -938,6 +938,67 @@ static void __init samsung_gpiolib_add(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip)
> >
> > s3c_gpiolib_track(chip);
> >
> > }
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX) && defined(CONFIG_OF)
> > +static int s3c24xx_gpio_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc,
> > + const struct of_phandle_args *gpiospec, u32
> > *flags) +{
> > + unsigned int pin;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(gc->of_gpio_n_cells < 3))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(gpiospec->args_count < gc->of_gpio_n_cells))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (gpiospec->args[0] > gc->ngpio)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + pin = gc->base + gpiospec->args[0];
> > +
> > + if (s3c_gpio_cfgpin(pin, S3C_GPIO_SFN(gpiospec->args[1])))
> > + pr_warn("gpio_xlate: failed to set pin function\n");
> > + if (s3c_gpio_setpull(pin, gpiospec->args[2] & 0xffff))
> > + pr_warn("gpio_xlate: failed to set pin pull up/down\n");
> > +
> > + if (flags)
> > + *flags = gpiospec->args[2] >> 16;
> > +
> > + return gpiospec->args[0];
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id s3c24xx_gpio_dt_match[] __initdata = {
> > + { .compatible = "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio", },
> > + {}
> > +};
> > +
> > +static __init void s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip, +
> > u64 base, u64 offset) +{
> > + struct gpio_chip *gc = &chip->chip;
> > + u64 address;
> > +
> > + if (!of_have_populated_dt())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + address = chip->base ? base + ((u32)chip->base & 0xfff) : base +
> > offset; + gc->of_node = of_find_matching_node_by_address(NULL,
> > + s3c24xx_gpio_dt_match, address);
> > + if (!gc->of_node) {
> > + pr_info("gpio: device tree node not found for gpio
> > controller" + " with base address %08llx\n",
> > address); + return;
> > + }
> > + gc->of_gpio_n_cells = 3;
> > + gc->of_xlate = s3c24xx_gpio_xlate;
> > +}
> > +#elif defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX)
> > +static __init void s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip, +
> > u64 base, u64 offset) +{
> > + return;
> > +}
> > +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX) && defined(CONFIG_OF) */
> > +
> >
> > static void __init s3c24xx_gpiolib_add_chips(struct samsung_gpio_chip
> > *chip,
> >
> > int nr_chips, void __iomem
> > *base)
> >
> > {
> >
> > @@ -962,6 +1023,8 @@ static void __init s3c24xx_gpiolib_add_chips(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip,
> >
> > gc->direction_output =
> > samsung_gpiolib_2bit_output;
> >
> > samsung_gpiolib_add(chip);
> >
> > +
> > + s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(chip, S3C24XX_PA_GPIO, i *
> > 0x10);
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3
>
> Overall, this is patch looks fine.
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Heiko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: heiko@sntech.de (Heiko Stübner)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] gpio: samsung: add devicetree init for s3c24xx arches
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:01:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201208271001.05026.heiko@sntech.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuYYwQBOP7-D0fepDsCr+43ASKQ3CmMBMH-M79QH7r=xS85Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your review:
Am Montag, 27. August 2012, 06:20:49 schrieb Thomas Abraham:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On 26 August 2012 03:23, Heiko St?bner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > Until now the Exynos-SoC was the only Samsung-SoC supporting the GPIOs
> > via the device tree. This patch implements dt-support for the
> > s3c24xx arches.
> >
> > The controllers contain only 3 cells, as the underlying gpio controller
> > does not support controlling the drive strength on a gpio level.
> >
> > Tested with the gpio-keys driver on a s3c2416 based machine.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
> > ---
> >
> > .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt | 38 ++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 63
> > ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt index
> > 5375625..ce6a7d4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> >
> > @@ -39,3 +39,41 @@ Example:
> > #gpio-cells = <4>;
> > gpio-controller;
> >
> > };
> >
> > +
> > +
> > +Samsung S3C24XX GPIO Controller
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +- compatible: Compatible property value should be
> > "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio".
>
> This is debatable, but I would choose to be specific here and use
> "samsing,s3c2416-gpio". For instance, SoC's in s3c24xx family have
> differing value for pull none/down/up.
Hmmm, but the logic to drive the gpio controller is the same for all arches.
The only difference is the number to use for the different pull up/down
settings. So I think the "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio" is ok but the documentation
should simply reflect the different pull settings.
> > +
> > +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and length of memory
> > mapped + region.
> > +
> > +- #gpio-cells: Should be 3. The syntax of the gpio specifier used by
> > client nodes + should be the following with values derived from the SoC
> > user manual. + <[phandle of the gpio controller node]
> > + [pin number within the gpio controller]
> > + [mux function]
> > + [flags and pull up/down]
> > +
> > + Values for gpio specifier:
> > + - Pin number: depending on the controller a number from 0 up to 15.
> > + - Flags and Pull Up/Down: 0 - Pull Up/Down Disabled.
> > + 1 - Pull Down Enabled.
> > + 3 - Pull Up Enabled.
>
> As per s3c2416 user manual, 2 is used for Pull Up and 3 is listed as
> reserved value. Any particular reason to use 3 here for pull up and
> not 2 as per the user manual?
Sorry, copy and paste error :-)
> > + Bit 16 (0x00010000) - Input is active low.
> > +
> > +- gpio-controller: Specifies that the node is a gpio controller.
> > +- #address-cells: should be 1.
> > +- #size-cells: should be 1.
>
> It would be informative to add information about the 'mux function'
> cell here as well. Specifically, on how to handle the banks that have
> an extended GPxSEL register that allow additional pin function
> selection.
Will add a mux function description.
Until now I've never realised the existence of the GPxSEL registers, so thanks
for the pointer :-).
But is this used in the driver at all? All the setcfg/getcfg functions in
gpio-samsung.c only handle the GPxCON registers - I haven't found code to
handle the GPxSEL registers at all. So my guess is that this was never
implemented - or that I'm blind ;-) .
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > + gpa: gpio-controller at 56000000 {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > + compatible = "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio";
> > + reg = <0x56000000 0x10>;
> > + #gpio-cells = <3>;
> > + gpio-controller;
> > + };
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > index a150d2e..80a2817 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> > @@ -938,6 +938,67 @@ static void __init samsung_gpiolib_add(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip)
> >
> > s3c_gpiolib_track(chip);
> >
> > }
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX) && defined(CONFIG_OF)
> > +static int s3c24xx_gpio_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc,
> > + const struct of_phandle_args *gpiospec, u32
> > *flags) +{
> > + unsigned int pin;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(gc->of_gpio_n_cells < 3))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(gpiospec->args_count < gc->of_gpio_n_cells))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (gpiospec->args[0] > gc->ngpio)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + pin = gc->base + gpiospec->args[0];
> > +
> > + if (s3c_gpio_cfgpin(pin, S3C_GPIO_SFN(gpiospec->args[1])))
> > + pr_warn("gpio_xlate: failed to set pin function\n");
> > + if (s3c_gpio_setpull(pin, gpiospec->args[2] & 0xffff))
> > + pr_warn("gpio_xlate: failed to set pin pull up/down\n");
> > +
> > + if (flags)
> > + *flags = gpiospec->args[2] >> 16;
> > +
> > + return gpiospec->args[0];
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id s3c24xx_gpio_dt_match[] __initdata = {
> > + { .compatible = "samsung,s3c24xx-gpio", },
> > + {}
> > +};
> > +
> > +static __init void s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip, +
> > u64 base, u64 offset) +{
> > + struct gpio_chip *gc = &chip->chip;
> > + u64 address;
> > +
> > + if (!of_have_populated_dt())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + address = chip->base ? base + ((u32)chip->base & 0xfff) : base +
> > offset; + gc->of_node = of_find_matching_node_by_address(NULL,
> > + s3c24xx_gpio_dt_match, address);
> > + if (!gc->of_node) {
> > + pr_info("gpio: device tree node not found for gpio
> > controller" + " with base address %08llx\n",
> > address); + return;
> > + }
> > + gc->of_gpio_n_cells = 3;
> > + gc->of_xlate = s3c24xx_gpio_xlate;
> > +}
> > +#elif defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX)
> > +static __init void s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip, +
> > u64 base, u64 offset) +{
> > + return;
> > +}
> > +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX) && defined(CONFIG_OF) */
> > +
> >
> > static void __init s3c24xx_gpiolib_add_chips(struct samsung_gpio_chip
> > *chip,
> >
> > int nr_chips, void __iomem
> > *base)
> >
> > {
> >
> > @@ -962,6 +1023,8 @@ static void __init s3c24xx_gpiolib_add_chips(struct
> > samsung_gpio_chip *chip,
> >
> > gc->direction_output =
> > samsung_gpiolib_2bit_output;
> >
> > samsung_gpiolib_add(chip);
> >
> > +
> > + s3c24xx_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(chip, S3C24XX_PA_GPIO, i *
> > 0x10);
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3
>
> Overall, this is patch looks fine.
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
Heiko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-27 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-25 21:53 [PATCH] gpio: samsung: add devicetree init for s3c24xx arches Heiko Stübner
2012-08-25 21:53 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-27 4:20 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-08-27 4:20 ` Thomas Abraham
[not found] ` <CAJuYYwQBOP7-D0fepDsCr+43ASKQ3CmMBMH-M79QH7r=xS85Eg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2012-08-27 8:01 ` Heiko Stübner [this message]
2012-08-27 8:01 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-27 8:57 ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2012-08-27 8:57 ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2012-08-27 9:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-27 9:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-27 9:51 ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2012-08-27 9:51 ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2012-08-27 10:12 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-27 10:12 ` Heiko Stübner
2012-08-28 4:44 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-08-28 4:44 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-08-31 22:52 ` Linus Walleij
2012-08-31 22:52 ` Linus Walleij
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=201208271001.05026.heiko@sntech.de \
--to=heiko-4mtyjxux2i+zqb+pc5nmwq@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kgene.kim-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=thomas.abraham-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
/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.