From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:53:30 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v8 24/24] gpio/omap: handle set_dataout reg capable IP on
	restore
In-Reply-To: <1317803593-12259-25-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> (Tarun
	Kanti DebBarma's message of "Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:13 +0530")
References: <1317803593-12259-1-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com>
	<1317803593-12259-25-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com>
Message-ID: <87aa8bde2d.fsf@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> writes:

> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>
> GPIO IP revisions such as those used in OMAP4 have a set_dataout
> while the previous revisions used a single dataout register.
> Depending on what is available restore the dataout settings
> to the right register.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com>
> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c |    9 +++++++--
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> index 4009446..3df7a98 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	bank->get_context_loss_count = pdata->get_context_loss_count;
>  	bank->regs = pdata->regs;
>  
> -	if (bank->regs->set_dataout && bank->regs->clr_dataout)
> +	if (bank->regs->set_dataout)

This change isn't right.

The _set_gpio_dataout_reg function depends on the existence of
->clr_dataout too.

>  		bank->set_dataout = _set_gpio_dataout_reg;
>  	else
>  		bank->set_dataout = _set_gpio_dataout_mask;
> @@ -1351,7 +1351,12 @@ static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank)
>  				bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect);
>  	__raw_writel(bank->context.fallingdetect,
>  				bank->base + bank->regs->fallingdetect);
> -	__raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, bank->base + bank->regs->dataout);
> +	if (bank->regs->set_dataout)
  
Why the check again?  The check has already been done in probe.

Just use bank->set_dataout() here.

Kevin

> +		__raw_writel(bank->context.dataout,
> +				bank->base + bank->regs->set_dataout);
> +	else
> +		__raw_writel(bank->context.dataout,
> +				bank->base + bank->regs->dataout);
>  	__raw_writel(bank->context.oe, bank->base + bank->regs->direction);
>  
>  	if (bank->dbck_enable_mask) {