Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

* [PATCH] gpio: exynos4: Add device tree support
From: Rob Herring @ 2011-10-11 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1318320974-9879-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>

Thomas,

On 10/11/2011 03:16 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> As gpio chips get registered, a device tree node which represents the
> gpio chip is searched and attached to it. A translate function is also
> provided to convert the gpio specifier into actual platform settings
> for pin function selection, pull up/down and driver strength settings.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on the latest consolidated Samsung GPIO driver available
> in the following tree:
>   https://github.com/kgene/linux-samsung.git  branch: for-next
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt      |   30 +++++++++++
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c                        |   53 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..883faeb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> +Samsung Exynos4 GPIO Controller
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: Format of compatible property value should be
> +  "samsung,exynos4-gpio-<controller_name>". Example: For GPA0 controller, the
> +  compatible property value should be "samsung,exynos4-gpio-gpa0".

Isn't gpa0 an instance of the h/w, not a version?

> +
> +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped region.
> +
> +- #gpio-cells: Should be 4. The syntax of the gpio specifier used by client nodes
> +  should be the following with values derived from the SoC user manual.
> +     <[phandle of the gpio controller node] <pin number within the gpio controller]
> +      [mux function] [pull up/down] [drive strength]>

It would be better to list out the values here.

> +
> +- gpio-controller: Specifies that the node is a gpio controller.
> +
> +- #address-cells: should be 1.
> +
> +- #size-cells: should be 1. 
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +	gpa0: gpio-controller at 11400000 {
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <1>;
> +		compatible = "samsung,exynos4-gpio-gpa0";
> +		reg = <0x11400000 0x20>;
> +		#gpio-cells = <4>;
> +		gpio-controller;
> +	};
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> index b6be77a..037d3bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/sysdev.h>
>  #include <linux/ioport.h>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#endif

Don't need the ifdef here.

>  
>  #include <asm/irq.h>
>  
> @@ -2353,6 +2357,52 @@ static struct samsung_gpio_chip exynos4_gpios_3[] = {
>  #endif
>  };
>  
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) && defined(CONFIG_OF)
> +int exynos4_gpio_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc, struct device_node *np,

static

> +			 const void *gpio_spec, u32 *flags)
> +{
> +	const __be32 *gpio = gpio_spec;
> +	const u32 n = be32_to_cpup(gpio);
> +	unsigned int pin = gc->base + be32_to_cpu(gpio[0]);
> +
> +	if (gc->of_gpio_n_cells < 4) {
> +		WARN_ON(1);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (n > gc->ngpio)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	s3c_gpio_cfgpin(pin, S3C_GPIO_SFN(be32_to_cpu(gpio[1])));
> +	s3c_gpio_setpull(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[2]));
> +	s5p_gpio_set_drvstr(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[3]));
> +	return n;
> +}
> +
> +static __init void exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct gpio_chip *gc)
> +{
> +	const char exynos4_gpio_compat_base[] = "samsung,exynos4-gpio-";
> +	char *exynos4_gpio_compat;
> +
> +	exynos4_gpio_compat = kzalloc(strlen(exynos4_gpio_compat_base) +
> +				strlen(gc->label), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!exynos4_gpio_compat)
> +		return;
> +
> +	strcpy(exynos4_gpio_compat, exynos4_gpio_compat_base);
> +	strcat(exynos4_gpio_compat, gc->label);
> +	gc->of_node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, exynos4_gpio_compat);
> +	gc->of_gpio_n_cells = 4;
> +	gc->of_xlate = exynos4_gpio_xlate;
> +	kfree(exynos4_gpio_compat);
> +}
> +#else
> +static __init void exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> +{
> +	return;
> +}
> +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) && defined(CONFIG_OF) */
> +
>  /* TODO: cleanup soc_is_* */
>  static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>  {
> @@ -2434,6 +2484,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>  				chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>  				chip->group = group++;
>  			}
> +			exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>  		}
>  		samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_1, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO1);
>  
> @@ -2446,6 +2497,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>  				chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>  				chip->group = group++;
>  			}
> +			exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>  		}
>  		samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_2, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO2);
>  
> @@ -2458,6 +2510,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>  				chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>  				chip->group = group++;
>  			}
> +			exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>  		}
>  		samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_3, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO3);
>  

This code is really ugly, but I guess you inherited it. Converting to a
platform driver and using id table would be much cleaner.

Rob

^ permalink raw reply