From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org (Arnaud Patard (Rtp)) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:19:18 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: iop32x: fix power off handling for the EM7210 board In-Reply-To: <1391005215-8520-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> (Linus Walleij's message of "Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:20:15 +0100") References: <1391005215-8520-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> Message-ID: <87lhxyfkax.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Linus Walleij writes: > This board was missed when converting all the others to proper > abstracted GPIO handling. Fix it up the right way by requesting > and driving GPIO line 0 high through gpiolib to power off the > machine. > > Cc: Arnaud Patard > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij > --- > ChangeLog v1->v2: > - Request the power off and set the power off hook with a > device_initcall() so we know the GPIO driver is available > when requesting the line. > - Refer to POWER OFF rather than RESET everywhere. > > ARM SoC folks, if you're happy with this fix, please apply it > directly to fixes in the ARM SoC tree. > --- > arch/arm/mach-iop32x/em7210.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-iop32x/em7210.c b/arch/arm/mach-iop32x/em7210.c > index 177cd073a83b..77e1ff057303 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-iop32x/em7210.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-iop32x/em7210.c > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -176,11 +177,35 @@ static struct platform_device em7210_serial_device = { > .resource = &em7210_uart_resource, > }; > > +#define EM7210_HARDWARE_POWER 0 > + > void em7210_power_off(void) > { > - *IOP3XX_GPOE &= 0xfe; > - *IOP3XX_GPOD |= 0x01; > + int ret; > + > + ret = gpio_direction_output(EM7210_HARDWARE_POWER, 1); btw, any reason for not using gpio_direction_output() in em7210_request_gpios() and gpio_set_value() here ? (just wondering) I can't test it on my ss4000e but at least this patch looks fine. Arnaud