* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values @ 2011-12-12 22:21 Paul Parsons 2011-12-21 14:12 ` Philipp Zabel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Paul Parsons @ 2011-12-12 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel linux-2.6.32 changed the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM from 64/128 to 96/192. This has broken the hx4700 platform, for example its PCMCIA/CF driver. The 9 EGPIO GPIOs have become numbered 256..264, and consequently fail the gpio_is_valid() test in gpiolib.c (which limits GPIOs to the range 0..255). This patch reverts the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM to their previous linux-2.6.31 values for the hx4700 platform only. Signed-off-by: Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> --- diff -uprN clean-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h linux-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h --- clean-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h 2011-12-09 23:09:32.000000000 +0000 +++ linux-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h 2011-12-12 15:21:09.770483920 +0000 @@ -87,8 +87,13 @@ #define IRQ_PXA955_MMC3 PXA_IRQ(75) /* MMC3 Controller (PXA955) */ #define IRQ_U2P PXA_IRQ(93) /* USB PHY D+/D- Lines (PXA935) */ +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_H4700 +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE PXA_IRQ(64) +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM (128) +#else #define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE PXA_IRQ(96) #define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM (192) +#endif #define GPIO_2_x_TO_IRQ(x) (PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE + (x)) #define IRQ_GPIO(x) (((x) < 2) ? (IRQ_GPIO0 + (x)) : GPIO_2_x_TO_IRQ(x)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2011-12-12 22:21 [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values Paul Parsons @ 2011-12-21 14:12 ` Philipp Zabel 2011-12-21 19:19 ` Dmitry Artamonow 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Philipp Zabel @ 2011-12-21 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hello Paul, On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> wrote: > linux-2.6.32 changed the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM from > 64/128 to 96/192. This has broken the hx4700 platform, for example its PCMCIA/CF > driver. The 9 EGPIO GPIOs have become numbered 256..264, and consequently fail > the gpio_is_valid() test in gpiolib.c (which limits GPIOs to the range 0..255). > This patch reverts the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM to their > previous linux-2.6.31 values for the hx4700 platform only. > > Signed-off-by: Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> > --- > > diff -uprN clean-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h linux-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h > --- clean-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h 2011-12-09 23:09:32.000000000 +0000 > +++ linux-3.2-rc5/arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h 2011-12-12 15:21:09.770483920 +0000 > @@ -87,8 +87,13 @@ > ?#define IRQ_PXA955_MMC3 ? ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(75) ? ? /* MMC3 Controller (PXA955) */ > ?#define IRQ_U2P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(93) ? ? /* USB PHY D+/D- Lines (PXA935) */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_H4700 > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(64) > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (128) > +#else > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(96) > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (192) > +#endif machine specific definitions were removed from mach/irqs.h in commits 0dc726bb264ca5ecfdfab94a6937e0e9b9b26f64 ([ARM] pxa: move board board IRQ definitions out of irqs.h) and 6ac6b817f3f4c23c5febd960d8deb343e13af5f3 (ARM: pxa: encode IRQ number into .nr_irqs). I'd propose to increase ARCH_NR_GPIOs to 264 in mach/gpio.h or plat/gpio.h instead. > > ?#define GPIO_2_x_TO_IRQ(x) ? ? (PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE + (x)) > ?#define IRQ_GPIO(x) ? ?(((x) < 2) ? (IRQ_GPIO0 + (x)) : GPIO_2_x_TO_IRQ(x)) regards Philipp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2011-12-21 14:12 ` Philipp Zabel @ 2011-12-21 19:19 ` Dmitry Artamonow 2011-12-22 5:58 ` Haojian Zhuang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Artamonow @ 2011-12-21 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 15:12 Wed 21 Dec , Philipp Zabel wrote: > Hello Paul, > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> wrote: > > linux-2.6.32 changed the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM from > > 64/128 to 96/192. This has broken the hx4700 platform, for example its PCMCIA/CF > > driver. The 9 EGPIO GPIOs have become numbered 256..264, and consequently fail > > the gpio_is_valid() test in gpiolib.c (which limits GPIOs to the range 0..255). > > This patch reverts the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM to their > > previous linux-2.6.31 values for the hx4700 platform only. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> > > --- [...] > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_H4700 > > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(64) > > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (128) > > +#else > > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(96) > > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (192) > > +#endif > > machine specific definitions were removed from mach/irqs.h in commits > 0dc726bb264ca5ecfdfab94a6937e0e9b9b26f64 ([ARM] pxa: move board board > IRQ definitions out of irqs.h) and > 6ac6b817f3f4c23c5febd960d8deb343e13af5f3 (ARM: pxa: encode IRQ number > into .nr_irqs). > I'd propose to increase ARCH_NR_GPIOs to 264 in mach/gpio.h or > plat/gpio.h instead. Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 -- Best regards, Dmitry "MAD" Artamonow ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2011-12-21 19:19 ` Dmitry Artamonow @ 2011-12-22 5:58 ` Haojian Zhuang 2011-12-22 19:49 ` Dmitry Artamonow 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Haojian Zhuang @ 2011-12-22 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: > On 15:12 Wed 21 Dec ? ? , Philipp Zabel wrote: >> Hello Paul, >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > linux-2.6.32 changed the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM from >> > 64/128 to 96/192. This has broken the hx4700 platform, for example its PCMCIA/CF >> > driver. The 9 EGPIO GPIOs have become numbered 256..264, and consequently fail >> > the gpio_is_valid() test in gpiolib.c (which limits GPIOs to the range 0..255). >> > This patch reverts the values of PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE and PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM to their >> > previous linux-2.6.31 values for the hx4700 platform only. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Parsons <lost.distance@yahoo.com> >> > --- > > [...] > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_H4700 >> > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(64) >> > +#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (128) >> > +#else >> > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE ? ? ?PXA_IRQ(96) >> > ?#define PXA_GPIO_IRQ_NUM ? ? ? (192) >> > +#endif >> >> machine specific definitions were removed from mach/irqs.h in commits >> 0dc726bb264ca5ecfdfab94a6937e0e9b9b26f64 ([ARM] pxa: move board board >> IRQ definitions out of irqs.h) and >> 6ac6b817f3f4c23c5febd960d8deb343e13af5f3 (ARM: pxa: encode IRQ number >> into .nr_irqs). >> I'd propose to increase ARCH_NR_GPIOs to 264 in mach/gpio.h or >> plat/gpio.h instead. > > Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. > BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom > settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html > > I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 > I think configuring ARCH_NR_GPIO is not a good solution. Since building one image is a target. While multiple archs are built together, what will happen? Maybe we need to change gpio like irq style. User could configure nr_gpio in machine description. Thanks Haojian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2011-12-22 5:58 ` Haojian Zhuang @ 2011-12-22 19:49 ` Dmitry Artamonow 2012-01-04 6:41 ` Haojian Zhuang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Artamonow @ 2011-12-22 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 13:58 Thu 22 Dec , Haojian Zhuang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: > > > > Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. > > BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom > > settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html > > > > I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 > > > I think configuring ARCH_NR_GPIO is not a good solution. Since > building one image > is a target. While multiple archs are built together, what will happen? Setting custom ARCH_NR_GPIO in mach/gpio.h does scale only inside one sub-arch, but the patch from the set above which migrates ARCH_NR_GPIO to arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h and converts it into Kconfig variable should help to select proper ARCH_NR_GPIO even for multi-arch kernels (Kconfig's magic will ensure that proper maximal value of ARCH_NR_GPIO is selected for each combination of platforms) See the patch here: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01431.html and Russell's explanation of Kconfig magic here: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01577.html > > Maybe we need to change gpio like irq style. User could configure > nr_gpio in machine > description. That's probably a good idea - I personally don't see much sense in having some randomly chosen arbitrarily big ARCH_NR_GPIO anyway, so it would be nice to have more advanced mechanisms in place of this. But I'm not sure if keeping hx4700 broken until some good infrastructure will come up is a good idea. -- Best regards, Dmitry "MAD" Artamonow ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2011-12-22 19:49 ` Dmitry Artamonow @ 2012-01-04 6:41 ` Haojian Zhuang 2012-01-04 9:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Haojian Zhuang @ 2012-01-04 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: > On 13:58 Thu 22 Dec ? ? , Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: >> > >> > Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. >> > BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom >> > settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html >> > >> > I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 >> > >> I think configuring ARCH_NR_GPIO is not a good solution. Since >> building one image >> is a target. While multiple archs are built together, what will happen? > > Setting custom ARCH_NR_GPIO in mach/gpio.h does scale only inside one > sub-arch, but the patch from the set above which migrates ARCH_NR_GPIO to > arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h and converts it into Kconfig variable should > help to select proper ARCH_NR_GPIO even for multi-arch kernels > (Kconfig's magic will ensure that proper maximal value of ARCH_NR_GPIO > is selected for each combination of platforms) > > See the patch here: > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01431.html > > and Russell's explanation of Kconfig magic here: > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01577.html > Excuse me to response so late. Russell, Since I failed to access your git tree, I can't verity whether the ARCH_NR_GPIO patch set is merged into your tree. Could you help to confirm this? Best Regards Haojian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2012-01-04 6:41 ` Haojian Zhuang @ 2012-01-04 9:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-01-05 0:21 ` Haojian Zhuang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2012-01-04 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:41:47PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: > > On 13:58 Thu 22 Dec ? ? , Haojian Zhuang wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: > >> > > >> > Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. > >> > BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom > >> > settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: > >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html > >> > > >> > I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 > >> > > >> I think configuring ARCH_NR_GPIO is not a good solution. Since > >> building one image > >> is a target. While multiple archs are built together, what will happen? > > > > Setting custom ARCH_NR_GPIO in mach/gpio.h does scale only inside one > > sub-arch, but the patch from the set above which migrates ARCH_NR_GPIO to > > arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h and converts it into Kconfig variable should > > help to select proper ARCH_NR_GPIO even for multi-arch kernels > > (Kconfig's magic will ensure that proper maximal value of ARCH_NR_GPIO > > is selected for each combination of platforms) > > > > See the patch here: > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01431.html > > > > and Russell's explanation of Kconfig magic here: > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01577.html > > > > Excuse me to response so late. > > Russell, > > Since I failed to access your git tree, I can't verity whether the ARCH_NR_GPIO > patch set is merged into your tree. Could you help to confirm this? commit 44986ab056076e9dc9fb9f8b4729afef7fa72616 Author: Peter De Schrijver (NVIDIA) <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> Date: Wed Dec 21 10:48:45 2011 +0100 ARM: 7240/1: Make ARCH_NR_GPIO a Kconfig variable Change ARCH_NR_GPIO into a Kconfig variable as suggested by Russel King. This makes ARCH_NR_GPIO single zImage friendly. The default value for tegra is defined as well. Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk> ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values 2012-01-04 9:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2012-01-05 0:21 ` Haojian Zhuang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Haojian Zhuang @ 2012-01-05 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:41:47PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: >> > On 13:58 Thu 22 Dec ? ? , Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@inbox.ru> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I also think increasing ARCH_NR_GPIO is the way to go. >> >> > BTW, there's a patchset floating around which moves such custom >> >> > settings of ARCH_NR_GPIO from mach/gpio.h into Kconfig variable: >> >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01433.html >> >> > >> >> > I'm not sure though if it's going to be merged into 3.3 >> >> > >> >> I think configuring ARCH_NR_GPIO is not a good solution. Since >> >> building one image >> >> is a target. While multiple archs are built together, what will happen? >> > >> > Setting custom ARCH_NR_GPIO in mach/gpio.h does scale only inside one >> > sub-arch, but the patch from the set above which migrates ARCH_NR_GPIO to >> > arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h and converts it into Kconfig variable should >> > help to select proper ARCH_NR_GPIO even for multi-arch kernels >> > (Kconfig's magic will ensure that proper maximal value of ARCH_NR_GPIO >> > is selected for each combination of platforms) >> > >> > See the patch here: >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01431.html >> > >> > and Russell's explanation of Kconfig magic here: >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.0/01577.html >> > >> >> Excuse me to response so late. >> >> Russell, >> >> Since I failed to access your git tree, I can't verity whether the ARCH_NR_GPIO >> patch set is merged into your tree. Could you help to confirm this? > > commit 44986ab056076e9dc9fb9f8b4729afef7fa72616 > Author: Peter De Schrijver (NVIDIA) <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > Date: ? Wed Dec 21 10:48:45 2011 +0100 > > ? ?ARM: 7240/1: Make ARCH_NR_GPIO a Kconfig variable > > ? ?Change ARCH_NR_GPIO into a Kconfig variable as suggested by Russel King. > ? ?This makes ARCH_NR_GPIO single zImage friendly. The default value for > ? ?tegra is defined as well. > > ? ?Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > ? ?Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk> > Thanks a lot, Russell Philipp, Could you help to change your patch based on this as Dmitry suggested? Best Regards Haojian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-05 0:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-12-12 22:21 [PATCH] pxa/hx4700: Fix PXA_GPIO_IRQ_BASE/IRQ_NUM values Paul Parsons 2011-12-21 14:12 ` Philipp Zabel 2011-12-21 19:19 ` Dmitry Artamonow 2011-12-22 5:58 ` Haojian Zhuang 2011-12-22 19:49 ` Dmitry Artamonow 2012-01-04 6:41 ` Haojian Zhuang 2012-01-04 9:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-01-05 0:21 ` Haojian Zhuang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).