[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

Once again, ixp4xx no longer even compiles. This patch fixes the issue
by converting over to gpiolib. This patch was first made by Imre and
posted by Marc, and I added in Russell's suggestion to empty the gpio
header file.

This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.

Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
---
 arch/arm/Kconfig                         |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c            |   48 +++++++++++++++++-
 arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h |   79 +-----------------------------
 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index 36586dba..7a8660a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ config ARCH_IXP4XX
 	select ARCH_HAS_DMA_SET_COHERENT_MASK
 	select CLKSRC_MMIO
 	select CPU_XSCALE
-	select GENERIC_GPIO
+	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
 	select MIGHT_HAVE_PCI
 	select NEED_MACH_IO_H
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c
index ebbd7fc..a9f8094 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
 #include <linux/clockchips.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/export.h>
+#include <linux/gpio.h>
 
 #include <mach/udc.h>
 #include <mach/hardware.h>
@@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ static signed char irq2gpio[32] = {
 	 7,  8,  9, 10, 11, 12, -1, -1,
 };
 
-int gpio_to_irq(int gpio)
+static int ixp4xx_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio)
 {
 	int irq;
 
@@ -117,7 +118,6 @@ int gpio_to_irq(int gpio)
 	}
 	return -EINVAL;
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpio_to_irq);
 
 int irq_to_gpio(unsigned int irq)
 {
@@ -383,12 +383,56 @@ static struct platform_device *ixp46x_devices[] __initdata = {
 unsigned long ixp4xx_exp_bus_size;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(ixp4xx_exp_bus_size);
 
+static int ixp4xx_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio)
+{
+	gpio_line_config(gpio, IXP4XX_GPIO_IN);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int ixp4xx_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio,
+					int level)
+{
+	gpio_line_set(gpio, level);
+	gpio_line_config(gpio, IXP4XX_GPIO_OUT);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int ixp4xx_gpio_get_value(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio)
+{
+	int value;
+
+	gpio_line_get(gpio, &value);
+
+	return value;
+}
+
+static void ixp4xx_gpio_set_value(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio,
+				  int value)
+{
+	gpio_line_set(gpio, value);
+}
+
+static struct gpio_chip ixp4xx_gpio_chip = {
+	.label			= "IXP4XX_GPIO_CHIP",
+	.direction_input	= ixp4xx_gpio_direction_input,
+	.direction_output	= ixp4xx_gpio_direction_output,
+	.get			= ixp4xx_gpio_get_value,
+	.set			= ixp4xx_gpio_set_value,
+	.to_irq			= ixp4xx_gpio_to_irq,
+	.base			= 0,
+	.ngpio			= 16,
+};
+
 void __init ixp4xx_sys_init(void)
 {
 	ixp4xx_exp_bus_size = SZ_16M;
 
 	platform_add_devices(ixp4xx_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(ixp4xx_devices));
 
+	gpiochip_add(&ixp4xx_gpio_chip);
+
 	if (cpu_is_ixp46x()) {
 		int region;
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h b/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h
index 83d6b4e..ef37f26 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h
@@ -1,79 +1,2 @@
-/*
- * arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h
- *
- * IXP4XX GPIO wrappers for arch-neutral GPIO calls
- *
- * Written by Milan Svoboda <msvoboda@ra.rockwell.com>
- * Based on PXA implementation by Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@gmail.com>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
- * (at your option) any later version.
- *
- * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
- * GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
- * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
- * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
- *
- */
-
-#ifndef __ASM_ARCH_IXP4XX_GPIO_H
-#define __ASM_ARCH_IXP4XX_GPIO_H
-
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <mach/hardware.h>
-
-#define __ARM_GPIOLIB_COMPLEX
-
-static inline int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
-{
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline void gpio_free(unsigned gpio)
-{
-	might_sleep();
-
-	return;
-}
-
-static inline int gpio_direction_input(unsigned gpio)
-{
-	gpio_line_config(gpio, IXP4XX_GPIO_IN);
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline int gpio_direction_output(unsigned gpio, int level)
-{
-	gpio_line_set(gpio, level);
-	gpio_line_config(gpio, IXP4XX_GPIO_OUT);
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline int gpio_get_value(unsigned gpio)
-{
-	int value;
-
-	gpio_line_get(gpio, &value);
-
-	return value;
-}
-
-static inline void gpio_set_value(unsigned gpio, int value)
-{
-	gpio_line_set(gpio, value);
-}
-
-#include <asm-generic/gpio.h>			/* cansleep wrappers */
-
-extern int gpio_to_irq(int gpio);
-#define gpio_to_irq gpio_to_irq
-extern int irq_to_gpio(unsigned int irq);
-
-#endif
+/* empty */
 
-- 
1.7.2.5

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi Richard,

Richard Cochran wrote:

> Once again, ixp4xx no longer even compiles.

Awesome, thanks for your persistence.

>From [1] I see some details that would be useful for the commit message.
Could you include them?

	This patch adds gpiolib support for the IXP4xx platform, which fixes the
	compilation of several ixp4xx platforms, e.g.:

	In file included from arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h:72,
			     from /home/frogger/projects/server/linux/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h:9,
			     from include/linux/gpio.h:30,
			     from arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/nslu2-setup.c:19:
	include/asm-generic/gpio.h: In function 'gpio_get_value_cansleep':
	include/asm-generic/gpio.h:218: error: implicit declaration of function '__gpio_get_value'
	include/asm-generic/gpio.h: In function 'gpio_set_value_cansleep':
	include/asm-generic/gpio.h:224: error: implicit declaration of function '__gpio_set_value'

And:

	The problem was introduced with commit eb9ae7f2a381 ("gpio: fix build
	error in include/asm-generic/gpio.h").

[...]
> This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.

If 3.1.y were still maintained, do I understand correctly that it
would not need this because it lacks eb9ae7f2a381?

[...]
>  arch/arm/Kconfig                         |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c            |   48 +++++++++++++++++-
>  arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h |   79 +-----------------------------
>  3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)

This is bigger than the usual stable-kernel-rules.txt standard (100
lines with context), but the gpio.h change leaves me so happy that I
suspect it should be okay. :)  If it isn't, we can cross that bridge
later.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1250585/focus=1250584

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> 	The problem was introduced with commit eb9ae7f2a381 ("gpio: fix build
> 	error in include/asm-generic/gpio.h").
[...]
> Richard Cochran wrote:

>> This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
>
> If 3.1.y were still maintained, do I understand correctly that it
> would not need this because it lacks eb9ae7f2a381?

Quick correction: looks like[*] 3.1 is also affected due to
58c244009ef6 ("Input: ads7846 - cleanup GPIO initialization").  Sorry
I missed that before.

drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c: In function 'ads7846_setup_pendown':
drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c:970: error: implicit declaration of
function 'gpio_request_one'

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

[*] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1250585/focus=1250984

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:18:29PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Quick correction: looks like[*] 3.1 is also affected due to
> 58c244009ef6 ("Input: ads7846 - cleanup GPIO initialization").  Sorry
> I missed that before.

...

> Hope that helps,

Yes, it does. I appreciate your effort in testing this on the older
versions.

Thanks,
Richard

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Once again, ixp4xx no longer even compiles. This patch fixes the issue
> by converting over to gpiolib. This patch was first made by Imre and
> posted by Marc, and I added in Russell's suggestion to empty the gpio
> header file.
> 
> This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>

So has every kernel since 3.1 been broken, or is it just broken now
but a good idea to backport anyway?

	Arnd

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Arnaud Patard (Rtp)]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

> On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> Once again, ixp4xx no longer even compiles. This patch fixes the issue
>> by converting over to gpiolib. This patch was first made by Imre and
>> posted by Marc, and I added in Russell's suggestion to empty the gpio
>> header file.
>> 
>> This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>
> So has every kernel since 3.1 been broken, or is it just broken now
> but a good idea to backport anyway?

every kernel since 3.1 (even 3.1-rc-something). Would be nice to see
this issue fixed as similar patches have been sent from time to time but
never been merged.

Arnaud

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
> 
> > On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >> Once again, ixp4xx no longer even compiles. This patch fixes the issue
> >> by converting over to gpiolib. This patch was first made by Imre and
> >> posted by Marc, and I added in Russell's suggestion to empty the gpio
> >> header file.
> >> 
> >> This fix should also go for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> >
> > So has every kernel since 3.1 been broken, or is it just broken now
> > but a good idea to backport anyway?
> 
> every kernel since 3.1 (even 3.1-rc-something). Would be nice to see
> this issue fixed as similar patches have been sent from time to time but
> never been merged.

Ok, thanks for the info. I'm sorry that it has come so far. I think Olof
and I are generally doing a good job at picking up all the pull requests,
but we sometimes miss single patches, especially when it's not clear that
they are expected to go into the arm-soc tree.

I have to admit that I didn't even remember who maintains ixp4xx, since
there hasn't been a single ixp4xx patch from Imre or Krzysztof that I've put
into the kernel over this time frame.

I've put the patch into the fixes branch now, it should be part of 
the next round of submissions.

What is the plan for ixp4xx going forward? Is one of you planning to
maintain a git tree and collect patches for inclusion in arm-soc?
I would be more comfortable just knowing where to pull from than
having to watch the mailing list and making sure the maintainers
Ack all the patches.
If there is no tree, should we downgrade ixp4xx in the MAINTAINERS
file from "Maintained" to "Odd fixes"?

	Arnd

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:39:49PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> Ok, thanks for the info. I'm sorry that it has come so far. I think Olof
> and I are generally doing a good job at picking up all the pull requests,
> but we sometimes miss single patches, especially when it's not clear that
> they are expected to go into the arm-soc tree.
> 
> I have to admit that I didn't even remember who maintains ixp4xx, since
> there hasn't been a single ixp4xx patch from Imre or Krzysztof that I've put
> into the kernel over this time frame.

It seems like the maintainers are not very responsive.

> What is the plan for ixp4xx going forward? Is one of you planning to
> maintain a git tree and collect patches for inclusion in arm-soc?
> I would be more comfortable just knowing where to pull from than
> having to watch the mailing list and making sure the maintainers
> Ack all the patches.
> If there is no tree, should we downgrade ixp4xx in the MAINTAINERS
> file from "Maintained" to "Odd fixes"?

Yes, there should be some kind of plan.

Thanks,
Richard

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 24 May 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:39:49PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for the info. I'm sorry that it has come so far. I think Olof
> > and I are generally doing a good job at picking up all the pull requests,
> > but we sometimes miss single patches, especially when it's not clear that
> > they are expected to go into the arm-soc tree.
> > 
> > I have to admit that I didn't even remember who maintains ixp4xx, since
> > there hasn't been a single ixp4xx patch from Imre or Krzysztof that I've put
> > into the kernel over this time frame.
> 
> It seems like the maintainers are not very responsive.
> 
> > What is the plan for ixp4xx going forward? Is one of you planning to
> > maintain a git tree and collect patches for inclusion in arm-soc?
> > I would be more comfortable just knowing where to pull from than
> > having to watch the mailing list and making sure the maintainers
> > Ack all the patches.
> > If there is no tree, should we downgrade ixp4xx in the MAINTAINERS
> > file from "Maintained" to "Odd fixes"?
> 
> Yes, there should be some kind of plan.

So would you be available to help out as a maintainer if Imre and
Krzysztof are no longer interested? You seem to be the only person
who has pushed any non-janitorial patches over the last year here.
I don't think it would be much work, mostly collecting the odd fixes
and occasionally trying that the boards you have still boot.

	Arnd

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:01:56AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> So would you be available to help out as a maintainer if Imre and
> Krzysztof are no longer interested? You seem to be the only person
> who has pushed any non-janitorial patches over the last year here.
> I don't think it would be much work, mostly collecting the odd fixes
> and occasionally trying that the boards you have still boot.

I might be able to help in this way. Let us wait to hear what Imre and
Krzysztof have to say first.

Thanks,
Richard

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Imre Kaloz]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:39:49 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

<snip>

> Ok, thanks for the info. I'm sorry that it has come so far. I think Olof
> and I are generally doing a good job at picking up all the pull requests,
> but we sometimes miss single patches, especially when it's not clear that
> they are expected to go into the arm-soc tree.
>
> I have to admit that I didn't even remember who maintains ixp4xx, since
> there hasn't been a single ixp4xx patch from Imre or Krzysztof that I've  
> put
> into the kernel over this time frame.

The gpiolib patch originated from me as well.

> I've put the patch into the fixes branch now, it should be part of
> the next round of submissions.

Thanks.

> What is the plan for ixp4xx going forward? Is one of you planning to
> maintain a git tree and collect patches for inclusion in arm-soc?
> I would be more comfortable just knowing where to pull from than
> having to watch the mailing list and making sure the maintainers
> Ack all the patches.
>
> If there is no tree, should we downgrade ixp4xx in the MAINTAINERS
> file from "Maintained" to "Odd fixes"?

Quite some patches are still in the OpenWrt repo only. When I'll have  
time, I'll revisit those as well as migrate ixp4xx to DT. I'm overloaded  
with work, so I'll need a few more weeks and I guess the same is true for  
Krzysztof as well..


Imre

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 24 May 2012, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> The gpiolib patch originated from me as well.

I've changed the author tag in the changeset to you now, and
noted the fact that Richard submitted it.

> > What is the plan for ixp4xx going forward? Is one of you planning to
> > maintain a git tree and collect patches for inclusion in arm-soc?
> > I would be more comfortable just knowing where to pull from than
> > having to watch the mailing list and making sure the maintainers
> > Ack all the patches.
> >
> > If there is no tree, should we downgrade ixp4xx in the MAINTAINERS
> > file from "Maintained" to "Odd fixes"?
> 
> Quite some patches are still in the OpenWrt repo only. When I'll have  
> time, I'll revisit those as well as migrate ixp4xx to DT. I'm overloaded  
> with work, so I'll need a few more weeks and I guess the same is true for  
> Krzysztof as well..

Ok, good to hear that you're still interested! I don't get the impression
that migrating ixp4xx to DT is urgent in any way, but I also don't think
it will be too much work. If all you want to do is allow the board files
to be replaced with DT, then I assume you need bindings for the flash,
ethernet and CF devices and convert the interrupt controller to use
irq domains. For PCI, it should be enough to provide a generic map_irq
function that uses the standard interrupt-maps property. That function
can even be defined in a way that is usable independent of the platform.

	Arnd

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:12:12PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 24 May 2012, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> > The gpiolib patch originated from me as well.
> 
> I've changed the author tag in the changeset to you now, and
> noted the fact that Richard submitted it.

I don't mind Imre getting the credit for this, but I changed this
patch so much that it really would need Imre's ack.

Thanks,
Richard

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org> writes:

>> So has every kernel since 3.1 been broken, or is it just broken now
>> but a good idea to backport anyway?
>
> every kernel since 3.1 (even 3.1-rc-something). Would be nice to see
> this issue fixed as similar patches have been sent from time to time but
> never been merged.

Is it really that bad? I'm using IXP425 with 3.2 and it definitely
compiles (and works). Extra patches maybe? I can't see anything obvious.

I can only promise I'll scan the mail backlog (which is huge) and fix
the mess.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

[PATCH] ixp4xx: fix compilation by adding gpiolib support

[Richard Cochran]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:52:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org> writes:
> 
> >> So has every kernel since 3.1 been broken, or is it just broken now
> >> but a good idea to backport anyway?
> >
> > every kernel since 3.1 (even 3.1-rc-something). Would be nice to see
> > this issue fixed as similar patches have been sent from time to time but
> > never been merged.
> 
> Is it really that bad? I'm using IXP425 with 3.2 and it definitely
> compiles (and works). Extra patches maybe? I can't see anything obvious.

[Sigh] 

Yes, it is really that bad. Try the following:

1. export kernel with tag v3.2
2. make ixp4xx_defconfig
3. make

You will see:

  CC      arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/nslu2-setup.o
In file included from arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/gpio.h:72,
                 from /tmp/linux-v3.2/arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h:5,
                 from include/linux/gpio.h:30,
                 from arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/nslu2-setup.c:19:
include/asm-generic/gpio.h: In function 'gpio_get_value_cansleep':
include/asm-generic/gpio.h:212: error: implicit declaration of function '__gpio_get_value'
include/asm-generic/gpio.h: In function 'gpio_set_value_cansleep':
include/asm-generic/gpio.h:218: error: implicit declaration of function '__gpio_set_value'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/nslu2-setup.o] Error 1

Richard