All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@freescale.com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, gnurou@gmail.com,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpringlemeir@nbsps.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] pinctrl: imx: add gpio pinmux support for vf610
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:47:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140925024712.GB6405@dragon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb68d2360314158cd8ccb9c6794877c3bb45d72e.1411492954.git.stefan@agner.ch>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:37:54PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Add pinmux support for GPIO for Vybrid (vf610) IOMUX controller.
> This is needed since direction configuration is not part of the
> GPIO module in Vybrid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c   | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h   |  1 +
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> index 0d4558b..64d1b59 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> @@ -294,10 +294,59 @@ static int imx_pmx_get_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned selector,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +			struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	reg &= ~(0x7 << 20);
> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);

Isn't this setup redundant at all, since imx_pmx_enable() already takes
care of setting mux register including GPIO mode?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +	   struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset, bool input)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	if (input)
> +		reg &= ~0x2;
> +	else
> +		reg |= 0x2;

This is all about Output Buffer Enable (OBE) bit.  What about Input
Buffer Enable (IBE) bit?  Don't we need to set or clear it as per GPIO
direction as well?

> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static const struct pinmux_ops imx_pmx_ops = {
>  	.get_functions_count = imx_pmx_get_funcs_count,
>  	.get_function_name = imx_pmx_get_func_name,
>  	.get_function_groups = imx_pmx_get_groups,
> +	.gpio_request_enable = imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable,
> +	.gpio_set_direction = imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction,
>  	.enable = imx_pmx_enable,
>  };
>  
> @@ -579,6 +628,11 @@ int imx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "wrong pinctrl info\n");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> +
> +	/* GPIO control functions only intended for shared mux/conf register */
> +	if (info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL)
> +		BUG_ON(!(info->flags & SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG));
> +

If this is always true, why don't we just use flag SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG
and save GPIO_CONTROL?  This check doesn't make too much sense to me if
we choose to have a new flag for GPIO setup.  IMO, we should probably
either drop the GPIO_CONTROL flag or the check.

Shawn

>  	info->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  
>  	/* Create state holders etc for this driver */
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> index 49e55d3..8f37ca4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info {
>  };
>  
>  #define SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG	0x1
> +#define GPIO_CONTROL		0x2
>  
>  #define NO_MUX		0x0
>  #define NO_PAD		0x0
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> index b788e15..fdf5661 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static const struct pinctrl_pin_desc vf610_pinctrl_pads[] = {
>  static struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info vf610_pinctrl_info = {
>  	.pins = vf610_pinctrl_pads,
>  	.npins = ARRAY_SIZE(vf610_pinctrl_pads),
> -	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG,
> +	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG | GPIO_CONTROL,
>  };
>  
>  static struct of_device_id vf610_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] pinctrl: imx: add gpio pinmux support for vf610
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:47:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140925024712.GB6405@dragon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb68d2360314158cd8ccb9c6794877c3bb45d72e.1411492954.git.stefan@agner.ch>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:37:54PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Add pinmux support for GPIO for Vybrid (vf610) IOMUX controller.
> This is needed since direction configuration is not part of the
> GPIO module in Vybrid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c   | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h   |  1 +
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> index 0d4558b..64d1b59 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> @@ -294,10 +294,59 @@ static int imx_pmx_get_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned selector,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +			struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	reg &= ~(0x7 << 20);
> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);

Isn't this setup redundant at all, since imx_pmx_enable() already takes
care of setting mux register including GPIO mode?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +	   struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset, bool input)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	if (input)
> +		reg &= ~0x2;
> +	else
> +		reg |= 0x2;

This is all about Output Buffer Enable (OBE) bit.  What about Input
Buffer Enable (IBE) bit?  Don't we need to set or clear it as per GPIO
direction as well?

> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static const struct pinmux_ops imx_pmx_ops = {
>  	.get_functions_count = imx_pmx_get_funcs_count,
>  	.get_function_name = imx_pmx_get_func_name,
>  	.get_function_groups = imx_pmx_get_groups,
> +	.gpio_request_enable = imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable,
> +	.gpio_set_direction = imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction,
>  	.enable = imx_pmx_enable,
>  };
>  
> @@ -579,6 +628,11 @@ int imx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "wrong pinctrl info\n");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> +
> +	/* GPIO control functions only intended for shared mux/conf register */
> +	if (info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL)
> +		BUG_ON(!(info->flags & SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG));
> +

If this is always true, why don't we just use flag SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG
and save GPIO_CONTROL?  This check doesn't make too much sense to me if
we choose to have a new flag for GPIO setup.  IMO, we should probably
either drop the GPIO_CONTROL flag or the check.

Shawn

>  	info->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  
>  	/* Create state holders etc for this driver */
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> index 49e55d3..8f37ca4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info {
>  };
>  
>  #define SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG	0x1
> +#define GPIO_CONTROL		0x2
>  
>  #define NO_MUX		0x0
>  #define NO_PAD		0x0
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> index b788e15..fdf5661 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static const struct pinctrl_pin_desc vf610_pinctrl_pads[] = {
>  static struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info vf610_pinctrl_info = {
>  	.pins = vf610_pinctrl_pads,
>  	.npins = ARRAY_SIZE(vf610_pinctrl_pads),
> -	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG,
> +	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG | GPIO_CONTROL,
>  };
>  
>  static struct of_device_id vf610_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@freescale.com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
Cc: <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <gnurou@gmail.com>,
	<kernel@pengutronix.de>, <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <bpringlemeir@nbsps.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] pinctrl: imx: add gpio pinmux support for vf610
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:47:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140925024712.GB6405@dragon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb68d2360314158cd8ccb9c6794877c3bb45d72e.1411492954.git.stefan@agner.ch>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:37:54PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Add pinmux support for GPIO for Vybrid (vf610) IOMUX controller.
> This is needed since direction configuration is not part of the
> GPIO module in Vybrid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c   | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h   |  1 +
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> index 0d4558b..64d1b59 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
> @@ -294,10 +294,59 @@ static int imx_pmx_get_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned selector,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +			struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	reg &= ~(0x7 << 20);
> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);

Isn't this setup redundant at all, since imx_pmx_enable() already takes
care of setting mux register including GPIO mode?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> +	   struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset, bool input)
> +{
> +	struct imx_pinctrl *ipctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	const struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info *info = ipctl->info;
> +	const struct imx_pin_reg *pin_reg;
> +	u32 reg;
> +
> +	if (!(info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	pin_reg = &info->pin_regs[offset];
> +	if (pin_reg->mux_reg == -1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	reg = readl(ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +	if (input)
> +		reg &= ~0x2;
> +	else
> +		reg |= 0x2;

This is all about Output Buffer Enable (OBE) bit.  What about Input
Buffer Enable (IBE) bit?  Don't we need to set or clear it as per GPIO
direction as well?

> +	writel(reg, ipctl->base + pin_reg->mux_reg);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static const struct pinmux_ops imx_pmx_ops = {
>  	.get_functions_count = imx_pmx_get_funcs_count,
>  	.get_function_name = imx_pmx_get_func_name,
>  	.get_function_groups = imx_pmx_get_groups,
> +	.gpio_request_enable = imx_pmx_gpio_request_enable,
> +	.gpio_set_direction = imx_pmx_gpio_set_direction,
>  	.enable = imx_pmx_enable,
>  };
>  
> @@ -579,6 +628,11 @@ int imx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "wrong pinctrl info\n");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> +
> +	/* GPIO control functions only intended for shared mux/conf register */
> +	if (info->flags & GPIO_CONTROL)
> +		BUG_ON(!(info->flags & SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG));
> +

If this is always true, why don't we just use flag SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG
and save GPIO_CONTROL?  This check doesn't make too much sense to me if
we choose to have a new flag for GPIO setup.  IMO, we should probably
either drop the GPIO_CONTROL flag or the check.

Shawn

>  	info->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  
>  	/* Create state holders etc for this driver */
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> index 49e55d3..8f37ca4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info {
>  };
>  
>  #define SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG	0x1
> +#define GPIO_CONTROL		0x2
>  
>  #define NO_MUX		0x0
>  #define NO_PAD		0x0
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> index b788e15..fdf5661 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-vf610.c
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static const struct pinctrl_pin_desc vf610_pinctrl_pads[] = {
>  static struct imx_pinctrl_soc_info vf610_pinctrl_info = {
>  	.pins = vf610_pinctrl_pads,
>  	.npins = ARRAY_SIZE(vf610_pinctrl_pads),
> -	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG,
> +	.flags = SHARE_MUX_CONF_REG | GPIO_CONTROL,
>  };
>  
>  static struct of_device_id vf610_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-25  2:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-23 17:37 [PATCH v2 0/5] vf610: Add GPIO support Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37 ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] pinctrl: imx: detect uninitialized pins Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  2:15   ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  2:15     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  2:15     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-23 17:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] pinctrl: imx: add gpio pinmux support for vf610 Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  2:47   ` Shawn Guo [this message]
2014-09-25  2:47     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  2:47     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  7:00     ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  7:00       ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  9:07       ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  9:07         ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  9:07         ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  9:36         ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  9:36           ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25 16:43           ` Bill Pringlemeir
2014-09-25 16:43             ` Bill Pringlemeir
2014-09-26 10:50             ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-26 10:50               ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-29 15:05               ` Bill Pringlemeir
2014-09-29 15:05                 ` Bill Pringlemeir
2014-09-29 15:05                 ` Bill Pringlemeir
2014-09-29 17:25                 ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-29 17:25                   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] gpio: vf610: add gpiolib/IRQ chip driver for Vybrid Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  5:55   ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  5:55     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  5:55     ` Shawn Guo
2014-09-25  8:10     ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-25  8:10       ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] ARM: dts: vf610: use new GPIO support Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] Documentation: dts: Add bindings for Vybrid GPIO/PORT module Stefan Agner
2014-09-23 17:37   ` Stefan Agner

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=20140925024712.GB6405@dragon \
    --to=shawn.guo@freescale.com \
    --cc=bpringlemeir@nbsps.com \
    --cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stefan@agner.ch \
    /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.