[PATCH v7] gpio: davinci: use {readl|writel}_relaxed() instead of __raw_*

[PATCH v7] gpio: davinci: use {readl|writel}_relaxed() instead of __raw_*

[Prabhakar Lad]

From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>

This patch replaces the __raw_readl/writel with
{readl|writel}_relaxed(), Altough the code runs on ARMv5
based SOCs, changing this will help copying the code
for other uses.

Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
---
 This patch is part of series [1] rest of the patches
 are Acked/reviewed so posting this patch independently
 and marking it as v7.
 
 [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg13037.html
 
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index 84be701..805552c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -82,14 +82,14 @@ static inline int __davinci_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
 	u32 mask = 1 << offset;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&d->lock, flags);
-	temp = __raw_readl(&g->dir);
+	temp = readl_relaxed(&g->dir);
 	if (out) {
 		temp &= ~mask;
-		__raw_writel(mask, value ? &g->set_data : &g->clr_data);
+		writel_relaxed(mask, value ? &g->set_data : &g->clr_data);
 	} else {
 		temp |= mask;
 	}
-	__raw_writel(temp, &g->dir);
+	writel_relaxed(temp, &g->dir);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&d->lock, flags);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
 	struct davinci_gpio_controller *d = chip2controller(chip);
 	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = d->regs;
 
-	return (1 << offset) & __raw_readl(&g->in_data);
+	return (1 << offset) & readl_relaxed(&g->in_data);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ davinci_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value)
 	struct davinci_gpio_controller *d = chip2controller(chip);
 	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = d->regs;
 
-	__raw_writel((1 << offset), value ? &g->set_data : &g->clr_data);
+	writel_relaxed((1 << offset), value ? &g->set_data : &g->clr_data);
 }
 
 static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -227,8 +227,8 @@ static void gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
 	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = irq2regs(d->irq);
 	u32 mask = (u32) irq_data_get_irq_handler_data(d);
 
-	__raw_writel(mask, &g->clr_falling);
-	__raw_writel(mask, &g->clr_rising);
+	writel_relaxed(mask, &g->clr_falling);
+	writel_relaxed(mask, &g->clr_rising);
 }
 
 static void gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
@@ -242,9 +242,9 @@ static void gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
 		status = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
 
 	if (status & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING)
-		__raw_writel(mask, &g->set_falling);
+		writel_relaxed(mask, &g->set_falling);
 	if (status & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING)
-		__raw_writel(mask, &g->set_rising);
+		writel_relaxed(mask, &g->set_rising);
 }
 
 static int gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned trigger)
@@ -286,10 +286,10 @@ gpio_irq_handler(unsigned irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
 		int		res;
 
 		/* ack any irqs */
-		status = __raw_readl(&g->intstat) & mask;
+		status = readl_relaxed(&g->intstat) & mask;
 		if (!status)
 			break;
-		__raw_writel(status, &g->intstat);
+		writel_relaxed(status, &g->intstat);
 
 		/* now demux them to the right lowlevel handler */
 		n = d->irq_base;
@@ -346,9 +346,9 @@ static int gpio_irq_type_unbanked(struct irq_data *data, unsigned trigger)
 	if (trigger & ~(IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	__raw_writel(mask, (trigger & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING)
+	writel_relaxed(mask, (trigger & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING)
 		     ? &g->set_falling : &g->clr_falling);
-	__raw_writel(mask, (trigger & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING)
+	writel_relaxed(mask, (trigger & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING)
 		     ? &g->set_rising : &g->clr_rising);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ static int davinci_gpio_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 		/* default trigger: both edges */
 		g = gpio2regs(0);
-		__raw_writel(~0, &g->set_falling);
-		__raw_writel(~0, &g->set_rising);
+		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->set_falling);
+		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->set_rising);
 
 		/* set the direct IRQs up to use that irqchip */
 		for (gpio = 0; gpio < pdata->gpio_unbanked; gpio++, irq++) {
@@ -456,8 +456,8 @@ static int davinci_gpio_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 		/* disabled by default, enabled only as needed */
 		g = gpio2regs(gpio);
-		__raw_writel(~0, &g->clr_falling);
-		__raw_writel(~0, &g->clr_rising);
+		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->clr_falling);
+		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->clr_rising);
 
 		/* set up all irqs in this bank */
 		irq_set_chained_handler(bank_irq, gpio_irq_handler);
@@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ done:
 	 * BINTEN -- per-bank interrupt enable. genirq would also let these
 	 * bits be set/cleared dynamically.
 	 */
-	__raw_writel(binten, gpio_base + BINTEN);
+	writel_relaxed(binten, gpio_base + BINTEN);
 
 	printk(KERN_INFO "DaVinci: %d gpio irqs\n", irq - gpio_to_irq(0));
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH v7] gpio: davinci: use {readl|writel}_relaxed() instead of __raw_*

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Prabhakar Lad
<prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>
> This patch replaces the __raw_readl/writel with
> {readl|writel}_relaxed(), Altough the code runs on ARMv5
> based SOCs, changing this will help copying the code
> for other uses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
> ---
>  This patch is part of series [1] rest of the patches
>  are Acked/reviewed so posting this patch independently
>  and marking it as v7.
>
>  [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg13037.html
>
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Should I take this into the GPIO tree, or should it go
in through the DaVinci tree?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH v7] gpio: davinci: use {readl|writel}_relaxed() instead of __raw_*

[Prabhakar Lad]

Hi Linus,

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Prabhakar Lad
> <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>>
>> This patch replaces the __raw_readl/writel with
>> {readl|writel}_relaxed(), Altough the code runs on ARMv5
>> based SOCs, changing this will help copying the code
>> for other uses.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  This patch is part of series [1] rest of the patches
>>  are Acked/reviewed so posting this patch independently
>>  and marking it as v7.
>>
>>  [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg13037.html
>>
>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
Thanks for the Ack.

> Should I take this into the GPIO tree, or should it go
> in through the DaVinci tree?
>
To avoid dependencies its better it goes via DaVinci tree.

Thanks,
--Prabhakar Lad

Re: [PATCH v7] gpio: davinci: use {readl|writel}_relaxed() instead of __raw_*

[Sekhar Nori]

On Friday 13 December 2013 09:34 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Prabhakar Lad
>> <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> This patch replaces the __raw_readl/writel with
>>> {readl|writel}_relaxed(), Altough the code runs on ARMv5
>>> based SOCs, changing this will help copying the code

s/copying/using

>>> for other uses.

Call out usability on big-endian machines specifically here.

>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  This patch is part of series [1] rest of the patches
>>>  are Acked/reviewed so posting this patch independently
>>>  and marking it as v7.
>>>
>>>  [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg13037.html
>>>
>>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>
>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>>
> Thanks for the Ack.
> 
>> Should I take this into the GPIO tree, or should it go
>> in through the DaVinci tree?
>>
> To avoid dependencies its better it goes via DaVinci tree.

I added this to v3.14/gpio branch of my tree (with modifications I
mentioned above).

I dont think there are dependencies for this particular patch though
(applies and builds nicely on latest Linus  T's tree). Even then, there
are too many GPIO patches floating around and I think it is better for
me to collect them for a while and if there really are no platform code
dependencies overall, I can probably hand that branch off to Linus W. We
will see.

Thanks,
Sekhar