All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Extend to support more pins
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:01:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C8EBB2.10101@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422439819-29854-3-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>

Hi Javier,

You are in a lead of 3 hrs from me..
Surprisingly I send very much same patch just few Mins ago :-)
May be we can merge goods in both :-)

On 28/01/15 10:10, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Many WLAN attached to a SDIO/MMC interface, needs more than one pin for
> their reset sequence. For example, is very common for chips to have two
> pins: one for reset and one for power enable.
>
> This patch adds support for more reset pins to the pwrseq_simple driver
> and instead hardcoding a fixed number, it uses the of_gpio_named_count()
> since the MMC power sequence is only built when CONFIG_OF is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> index 0958c696137f..9e51fe1051c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
>   #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>   #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>
>   #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
> @@ -19,34 +20,44 @@
>
>   struct mmc_pwrseq_simple {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq pwrseq;
> -	struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> +	struct gpio_desc **reset_gpio;

May be renaming it to reset_gpios makes more sense..

If you make this struct gpio_desc *reset_gpios[0]; You can aviod an 
extra kmalloc and free ..


> +	int nr_gpios;
>   };
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {

[...
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 1);
> +	for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +		if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 1);

...]

>   }
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {

[...

>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 0);
> +	for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +		if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 0);
...]

Now that we have more code in mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on() and 
mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(), Just move most of them into a common 
function like:

static void __mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(struct mmc_host *host,
						      bool on)
{
	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
	int i;

	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios)) {
		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->ngpios; i++)
			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpios[i],
						 on ? : 0);
	}
}

static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
	__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, true);
}

static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
	__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, false);
}


>   }
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_free(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +			if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +				gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> +		kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	}
>
>   	kfree(pwrseq);
>   	host->pwrseq = NULL;
> @@ -63,17 +74,27 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq;
>   	int ret = 0;
> +	int i;
>
>   	pwrseq = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mmc_pwrseq_simple), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!pwrseq)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>
> -	pwrseq->reset_gpio = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", 0, GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> -	if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) &&
> -		PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOENT &&
> -		PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOSYS) {
> -		ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> -		goto free;
> +	pwrseq->nr_gpios = of_gpio_named_count(dev->of_node, "reset-gpios");
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {

What happens if there are no gpios? This fuction should return -ENOENT 
and should not even try to allocate pwrseq?
Probably you should do of_gpio_named_count before allocating memory.

> +		pwrseq->reset_gpio = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gpio_desc *) *
> +					     pwrseq->nr_gpios, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++) {
> +			pwrseq->reset_gpio[i] = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", i,
> +								GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> +			if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) &&
> +			    PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOENT &&
> +			    PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOSYS) {
> +				ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);

is simple to add:
	while(--i)
		gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i])


		
> +				goto free;
> +			}
> +		}


>   	}
>
>   	pwrseq->pwrseq.ops = &mmc_pwrseq_simple_ops;
> @@ -81,6 +102,13 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
>
>   	return 0;
>   free:
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +			if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +				gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> +		kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	}
> +
>   	kfree(pwrseq);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>

I get a feeling that am just dumping my patch here.. If possible could 
you have look at it too.

Thanks,
srini

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org (Srinivas Kandagatla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Extend to support more pins
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:01:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C8EBB2.10101@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422439819-29854-3-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>

Hi Javier,

You are in a lead of 3 hrs from me..
Surprisingly I send very much same patch just few Mins ago :-)
May be we can merge goods in both :-)

On 28/01/15 10:10, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Many WLAN attached to a SDIO/MMC interface, needs more than one pin for
> their reset sequence. For example, is very common for chips to have two
> pins: one for reset and one for power enable.
>
> This patch adds support for more reset pins to the pwrseq_simple driver
> and instead hardcoding a fixed number, it uses the of_gpio_named_count()
> since the MMC power sequence is only built when CONFIG_OF is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> index 0958c696137f..9e51fe1051c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
>   #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>   #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>
>   #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
> @@ -19,34 +20,44 @@
>
>   struct mmc_pwrseq_simple {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq pwrseq;
> -	struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> +	struct gpio_desc **reset_gpio;

May be renaming it to reset_gpios makes more sense..

If you make this struct gpio_desc *reset_gpios[0]; You can aviod an 
extra kmalloc and free ..


> +	int nr_gpios;
>   };
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {

[...
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 1);
> +	for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +		if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 1);

...]

>   }
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {

[...

>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 0);
> +	for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +		if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 0);
...]

Now that we have more code in mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on() and 
mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(), Just move most of them into a common 
function like:

static void __mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(struct mmc_host *host,
						      bool on)
{
	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
	int i;

	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios)) {
		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->ngpios; i++)
			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpios[i],
						 on ? : 0);
	}
}

static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
	__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, true);
}

static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
	__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, false);
}


>   }
>
>   static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_free(struct mmc_host *host)
>   {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>   					struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> +	int i;
>
> -	if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> -		gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +			if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +				gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> +		kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	}
>
>   	kfree(pwrseq);
>   	host->pwrseq = NULL;
> @@ -63,17 +74,27 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq;
>   	int ret = 0;
> +	int i;
>
>   	pwrseq = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mmc_pwrseq_simple), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!pwrseq)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>
> -	pwrseq->reset_gpio = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", 0, GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> -	if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) &&
> -		PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOENT &&
> -		PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOSYS) {
> -		ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> -		goto free;
> +	pwrseq->nr_gpios = of_gpio_named_count(dev->of_node, "reset-gpios");
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {

What happens if there are no gpios? This fuction should return -ENOENT 
and should not even try to allocate pwrseq?
Probably you should do of_gpio_named_count before allocating memory.

> +		pwrseq->reset_gpio = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gpio_desc *) *
> +					     pwrseq->nr_gpios, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++) {
> +			pwrseq->reset_gpio[i] = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", i,
> +								GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> +			if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) &&
> +			    PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOENT &&
> +			    PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOSYS) {
> +				ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);

is simple to add:
	while(--i)
		gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i])


		
> +				goto free;
> +			}
> +		}


>   	}
>
>   	pwrseq->pwrseq.ops = &mmc_pwrseq_simple_ops;
> @@ -81,6 +102,13 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
>
>   	return 0;
>   free:
> +	if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> +			if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> +				gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> +		kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> +	}
> +
>   	kfree(pwrseq);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>

I get a feeling that am just dumping my patch here.. If possible could 
you have look at it too.

Thanks,
srini

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-28 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-28 10:10 [PATCH 0/5] Add multiple GPIO and external clock to MMC pwrseq_simple Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` [PATCH 1/5] mmc: pwrseq: Document that simple sequence support more than one GPIO Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 16:34   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-01-28 16:34     ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-01-28 16:35     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 16:35       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` [PATCH 2/5] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Extend to support more pins Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 14:01   ` Srinivas Kandagatla [this message]
2015-01-28 14:01     ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-01-28 16:13     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 16:13       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 16:31       ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-01-28 16:31         ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-01-28 10:10 ` [PATCH 3/5] mmc: pwrseq: Document optional clock for the simple power sequence Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` [PATCH 4/5] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Add optional reference clock support Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: dts: exynos5250-snow: Enable wifi power-on Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 10:10   ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 14:03   ` Arend van Spriel
2015-01-28 14:03     ` Arend van Spriel
2015-01-28 14:03     ` Arend van Spriel
2015-01-28 15:57     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 15:57       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-28 15:57       ` Javier Martinez Canillas

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=54C8EBB2.10101@linaro.org \
    --to=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk \
    --cc=kgene@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.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.