From: "Janusz Użycki" <j.uzycki@elproma.com.pl>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
fabio.estevam@freescale.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5469BBBD.30003@elproma.com.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141117082848.GZ27002@pengutronix.de>
W dniu 2014-11-17 o 09:28, Uwe Kleine-König pisze:
> Hello Janusz,
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:58:44AM +0100, Janusz Użycki wrote:
>> W dniu 2014-11-17 o 00:59, Janusz Użycki pisze:
>>> W dniu 2014-11-16 o 22:42, Uwe Kleine-König pisze:
>>> Thanks Uwe. I fully agree with you.
>>> a) was just a starter to your suggestion. My options were too
>>> conservative - I just
>>> wanted to avoid tests on hardware I don't have.
> That's something you have to live with and that's why there is a merge
> window.
>
>>> I don't understand why gpiod_get_direction() always requires the callback
>>> and b) would be broken (I'm not so familiar with gpiolib) but I
>>> don't need it now.
>>>
>>> So, it looks we can drop the gpio-mxs patch, yes?
> That patch is not wrong, just its motivation. IMHO the only valid
> usecase for .get_direction is debugging.
OK, I will submit v2.
>
>>> And, I or Richard should submit a patch for
>>> mctrl_gpio/atmel_serial/mxs-auart
>>> to introduce the irq helper, yes?
>>>
>>> You wrote passing uart_port is enough. Argument "name" for
>>> request_irq() can be
>>> recovered from dev_name(dev) or dev_driver_string(dev) where dev
>>> = port_uart->dev.
>>> But irqhandler and mctrl_gpios must be passed to
> You don't need irqhandler. struct mctrl_gpios is needed of course.
request_irq() needs a irqhandler. Do you thing about a mctrl_ handler
for gpios?
>
>>> mctrl_gpio_request_irqs() helper.
>>> The gpio_irq table could be hidden and moved into struct
>>> mctrl_gpios. Then
>>> a second helper function is required: mctrl_gpio_free_irqs().
> yes.
>
>> After some coding...
>> gpio_irq cannot be hidden - it is used by disable/enable_ms() and
>> not only :/
> mctrl_gpio_enable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
This makes unable to combine gpio's and chip's lines but it could be
advantage
to separate them.
>
>>> gpio_irq table initialized in mctrl_gpio_request_irqs().
>> or it could be nicely done in mctrl_gpio_init() but the problem is
>> next argument
>> for the function :/
>> eg.:
>> struct mctrl_gpios *mctrl_gpio_init(struct device *dev, unsigned int
>> idx, int *irqs)
> What is idx about? I see it already in the mctrl_gpio API, but there is
> no documentation about how it's used. Is it always 0?
dt index
> There is no need to pass an output parameter for irqs. Just save them in
> struct mctrl_gpios.
>
> I'd go and change all struct device * parameters of the mctrl_gpio API
> to struct uart_port for consistency or add struct uart_port to struct
> mctrl_gpios.
>
>>> So finally the prototypes would be:
>>> int mctrl_gpio_request_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*, struct
>>> uart_port*, irqhandler_t);
>>> void mctrl_gpio_free_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*);
> I think:
>
> struct mctrl_gpios {
> struct uart_port *port;
> struct {
> gpio_desc *gpio;
> unsigned int irq;
> } mctrl_line[UART_GPIO_MAX];
> };
Looks good. Richard, do you agree?
> struct mctrl_gpios *mctrl_gpio_init(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int idx_if_needed);
> int mctrl_gpio_enable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
> int mctrl_gpio_disable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
> void mctrl_gpio_free(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
>
> I think mctrl_gpio_init should request the needed irqs, but not enable
> them.
Yes. I tried to assign irq value in mctrl_gpio_init() only.
There was another issue if CONFIG_GPIOLIB is not defined but it looks
mctrl_ disable/enable_ms()
and mctrl_ irq handler solve the problem.
> Not sure there is a corresponding request_irq variant for that.
What would you propose?
> Another open issue is how mctrl_gpio_init should find out about which
> gpios to use if there is no device tree. This doesn't necessarily needs
> to be solved now, but maybe rename mctrl_gpio_init to
> mctrl_gpio_init_dt?
Right
best regards
Janusz
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: j.uzycki@elproma.com.pl (Janusz Użycki)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:11:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5469BBBD.30003@elproma.com.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141117082848.GZ27002@pengutronix.de>
W dniu 2014-11-17 o 09:28, Uwe Kleine-K?nig pisze:
> Hello Janusz,
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:58:44AM +0100, Janusz U?ycki wrote:
>> W dniu 2014-11-17 o 00:59, Janusz U?ycki pisze:
>>> W dniu 2014-11-16 o 22:42, Uwe Kleine-K?nig pisze:
>>> Thanks Uwe. I fully agree with you.
>>> a) was just a starter to your suggestion. My options were too
>>> conservative - I just
>>> wanted to avoid tests on hardware I don't have.
> That's something you have to live with and that's why there is a merge
> window.
>
>>> I don't understand why gpiod_get_direction() always requires the callback
>>> and b) would be broken (I'm not so familiar with gpiolib) but I
>>> don't need it now.
>>>
>>> So, it looks we can drop the gpio-mxs patch, yes?
> That patch is not wrong, just its motivation. IMHO the only valid
> usecase for .get_direction is debugging.
OK, I will submit v2.
>
>>> And, I or Richard should submit a patch for
>>> mctrl_gpio/atmel_serial/mxs-auart
>>> to introduce the irq helper, yes?
>>>
>>> You wrote passing uart_port is enough. Argument "name" for
>>> request_irq() can be
>>> recovered from dev_name(dev) or dev_driver_string(dev) where dev
>>> = port_uart->dev.
>>> But irqhandler and mctrl_gpios must be passed to
> You don't need irqhandler. struct mctrl_gpios is needed of course.
request_irq() needs a irqhandler. Do you thing about a mctrl_ handler
for gpios?
>
>>> mctrl_gpio_request_irqs() helper.
>>> The gpio_irq table could be hidden and moved into struct
>>> mctrl_gpios. Then
>>> a second helper function is required: mctrl_gpio_free_irqs().
> yes.
>
>> After some coding...
>> gpio_irq cannot be hidden - it is used by disable/enable_ms() and
>> not only :/
> mctrl_gpio_enable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
This makes unable to combine gpio's and chip's lines but it could be
advantage
to separate them.
>
>>> gpio_irq table initialized in mctrl_gpio_request_irqs().
>> or it could be nicely done in mctrl_gpio_init() but the problem is
>> next argument
>> for the function :/
>> eg.:
>> struct mctrl_gpios *mctrl_gpio_init(struct device *dev, unsigned int
>> idx, int *irqs)
> What is idx about? I see it already in the mctrl_gpio API, but there is
> no documentation about how it's used. Is it always 0?
dt index
> There is no need to pass an output parameter for irqs. Just save them in
> struct mctrl_gpios.
>
> I'd go and change all struct device * parameters of the mctrl_gpio API
> to struct uart_port for consistency or add struct uart_port to struct
> mctrl_gpios.
>
>>> So finally the prototypes would be:
>>> int mctrl_gpio_request_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*, struct
>>> uart_port*, irqhandler_t);
>>> void mctrl_gpio_free_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*);
> I think:
>
> struct mctrl_gpios {
> struct uart_port *port;
> struct {
> gpio_desc *gpio;
> unsigned int irq;
> } mctrl_line[UART_GPIO_MAX];
> };
Looks good. Richard, do you agree?
> struct mctrl_gpios *mctrl_gpio_init(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int idx_if_needed);
> int mctrl_gpio_enable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
> int mctrl_gpio_disable_ms(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
> void mctrl_gpio_free(struct mctrl_gpios *gpios);
>
> I think mctrl_gpio_init should request the needed irqs, but not enable
> them.
Yes. I tried to assign irq value in mctrl_gpio_init() only.
There was another issue if CONFIG_GPIOLIB is not defined but it looks
mctrl_ disable/enable_ms()
and mctrl_ irq handler solve the problem.
> Not sure there is a corresponding request_irq variant for that.
What would you propose?
> Another open issue is how mctrl_gpio_init should find out about which
> gpios to use if there is no device tree. This doesn't necessarily needs
> to be solved now, but maybe rename mctrl_gpio_init to
> mctrl_gpio_init_dt?
Right
best regards
Janusz
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-17 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-14 22:27 [PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback Janusz Uzycki
2014-11-14 22:27 ` Janusz Uzycki
2014-11-14 23:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-14 23:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-15 19:29 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-15 19:29 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-16 21:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-16 21:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-16 21:48 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-16 21:48 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-16 23:59 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-16 23:59 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 1:58 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 1:58 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 8:28 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:28 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:38 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 8:38 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 8:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:53 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 8:53 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 9:11 ` Janusz Użycki [this message]
2014-11-17 9:11 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 9:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 9:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 9:46 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 9:46 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 9:59 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 9:59 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 10:05 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 10:05 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 14:29 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 14:29 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 16:14 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 16:14 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 15:53 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 15:53 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 15:58 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 15:58 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 16:02 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 16:02 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 16:04 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 16:04 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 17:26 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 17:26 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 10:05 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 10:05 ` Alexander Shiyan
2014-11-17 10:09 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-11-17 10:09 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-11-17 10:10 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 10:10 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 10:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-11-17 10:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-11-17 12:40 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 12:40 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 9:51 ` request an irq without enabling? [Was: Re: [PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback] Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 9:51 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 9:57 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 9:57 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 17:00 ` [PATCH] gpio: mxs: implement get_direction callback Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 17:00 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 17:07 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 17:07 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 18:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 18:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 19:02 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 19:02 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 22:21 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 22:21 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-18 9:59 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-18 9:59 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 9:26 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 9:26 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 14:45 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 14:45 ` Janusz Użycki
2014-11-17 15:59 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 15:59 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:31 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 8:31 ` Richard Genoud
2014-11-17 8:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2014-11-17 8:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
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=5469BBBD.30003@elproma.com.pl \
--to=j.uzycki@elproma.com.pl \
--cc=fabio.estevam@freescale.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard.genoud@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/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.