The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor.lin@realtek.com>
Cc: <linusw@kernel.org>, <brgl@kernel.org>, <robh@kernel.org>,
	<krzk+dt@kernel.org>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <afaerber@suse.com>,
	<wbg@kernel.org>, <mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com>,
	<mwalle@kernel.org>, <lars@metafoo.de>,
	<Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>, <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
	<andy@kernel.org>, <dlechner@baylibre.com>, <tychang@realtek.com>,
	<linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-realtek-soc@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>, <cy.huang@realtek.com>,
	<stanley_chang@realtek.com>, <james.tai@realtek.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] gpio: regmap: Add gpio_regmap_operation and write-enable support
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:37:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260512153745.3ec68675@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260512033317.1602537-4-eleanor.lin@realtek.com>

On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:33:13 +0800
Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor.lin@realtek.com> wrote:

> Extend the reg_mask_xlate callback with an operation type parameter
> (gpio_regmap_operation) to allow drivers to return different
> register/mask combinations for different GPIO operations.
> 
> Also add write-enable mechanism for hardware that requires setting a
> write-enable bit before modifying GPIO control registers.
> 
> Consequently, update all existing drivers utilizing the gpio-regmap
> framework (across drivers/gpio, drivers/iio, and drivers/pinctrl)
> to accommodate the new reg_mask_xlate function signature.

What is the reasoning behind setting *mask = 0 for unsupported operations?
If it is a special value why not just return an error code to indicate
not supported?  This seems to come from the assumption that you will want
to | that with masks for another operation.

I'm coming into this late but to me there look to be a bunch of undocumented
assumptions. Why do the operations have to share a register for example?

Perhaps an interface where you provide a single operation for write_enable
and whatever else and hence t here is only one 'reg' would work better?


> 
> Suggested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor.lin@realtek.com>

> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c
> index deb9eebb58de..c76eef20e412 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c
> @@ -38,9 +38,10 @@ struct gpio_regmap {
>  	struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_chip_data;
>  #endif
>  
> -	int (*reg_mask_xlate)(struct gpio_regmap *gpio, unsigned int base,
> -			      unsigned int offset, unsigned int *reg,
> -			      unsigned int *mask);
> +	int (*reg_mask_xlate)(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> +			      enum gpio_regmap_operation op,
> +			      unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> +			      unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask);
>  
>  	void *driver_data;
>  };
> @@ -54,6 +55,7 @@ static unsigned int gpio_regmap_addr(unsigned int addr)
>  }
>  
>  static int gpio_regmap_simple_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> +				    enum gpio_regmap_operation op,
>  				    unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
>  				    unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
>  {
> @@ -61,7 +63,16 @@ static int gpio_regmap_simple_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
>  	unsigned int stride = offset / gpio->ngpio_per_reg;
>  
>  	*reg = base + stride * gpio->reg_stride;
> -	*mask = BIT(line);
> +
> +	switch (op) {
> +	case GPIO_REGMAP_SET_WREN_OP:
> +	case GPIO_REGMAP_SET_DIR_WREN_OP:
> +		*mask = 0;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		*mask = BIT(line);
> +		break;
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -69,7 +80,7 @@ static int gpio_regmap_simple_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
>  static int gpio_regmap_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
>  {
>  	struct gpio_regmap *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> -	unsigned int base, val, reg, mask;
> +	unsigned int base, val, reg, mask, dir_mask;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* we might not have an output register if we are input only */
> @@ -78,10 +89,24 @@ static int gpio_regmap_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
>  	else
>  		base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_set_base);
>  
> -	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_GET_OP, base, offset, &reg, &dir_mask);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	ret = regmap_read(gpio->regmap, reg, &val);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (val & dir_mask) {
> +		ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_OUT, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	} else {
> +		ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_IN, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* ensure we don't spoil any register cache with pin input values */
>  	if (gpio->reg_dat_base == gpio->reg_set_base)
>  		ret = regmap_read_bypassed(gpio->regmap, reg, &val);
> @@ -98,10 +123,14 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
>  {
>  	struct gpio_regmap *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>  	unsigned int base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_set_base);
> -	unsigned int reg, mask, mask_val;
> +	unsigned int reg, mask, mask_val, wren_mask;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_WREN_OP, base, offset, &reg, &wren_mask);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_OP, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> @@ -112,9 +141,9 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
>  
>  	/* ignore input values which shadow the old output value */
>  	if (gpio->reg_dat_base == gpio->reg_set_base)
> -		ret = regmap_write_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, mask_val);
> +		ret = regmap_write_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask | wren_mask, mask_val | wren_mask);
>  	else
> -		ret = regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, mask_val);
> +		ret = regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask | wren_mask, mask_val | wren_mask);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -123,7 +152,7 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set_with_clear(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  				      unsigned int offset, int val)
>  {
>  	struct gpio_regmap *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> -	unsigned int base, reg, mask;
> +	unsigned int base, reg, mask, wren_mask;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	if (val)
> @@ -131,11 +160,15 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set_with_clear(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  	else
>  		base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_clr_base);
>  
> -	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_WREN_OP, base, offset, &reg, &wren_mask);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	return regmap_write(gpio->regmap, reg, mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_WITH_CLEAR_OP, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return regmap_write(gpio->regmap, reg, mask | wren_mask);
>  }
>  
>  static int gpio_regmap_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> @@ -167,7 +200,7 @@ static int gpio_regmap_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  		return -ENOTSUPP;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_GET_DIR_OP, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> @@ -185,7 +218,7 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  				     unsigned int offset, bool output)
>  {
>  	struct gpio_regmap *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> -	unsigned int base, val, reg, mask;
> +	unsigned int base, val, reg, mask, wren_mask;
>  	int invert, ret;
>  
>  	if (gpio->reg_dir_out_base) {
> @@ -198,7 +231,12 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  		return -ENOTSUPP;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_DIR_OP, base, offset, &reg, &mask);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, GPIO_REGMAP_SET_DIR_WREN_OP, base, offset, &reg,
> +				   &wren_mask);

What constrains these two to provide the same value back for reg?
To me it seems like the write enable might well be in a different register.

>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> @@ -207,7 +245,7 @@ static int gpio_regmap_set_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>  	else
>  		val = output ? mask : 0;
>  
> -	return regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, val);
> +	return regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask | wren_mask, val | wren_mask);
>  }
>  
>  static int gpio_regmap_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-05-12 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-12  3:33 [PATCH v3 0/7] gpio: realtek: Add support for Realtek DHC RTD1625 Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] gpio: Replace "default y" with "default ARCH_REALTEK" in Kconfig Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] gpio: regmap: add gpio_regmap_get_gpiochip() accessor Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12 11:20   ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] gpio: regmap: Add gpio_regmap_operation and write-enable support Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12 11:26   ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-05-12 14:37   ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2026-05-13  7:40   ` Linus Walleij
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] gpio: regmap: Add set_config callback Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12 18:12   ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] dt-bindings: gpio: realtek: Add realtek,rtd1625-gpio Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] gpio: realtek: Add driver for Realtek DHC RTD1625 SoC Yu-Chun Lin
2026-05-12 18:50   ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-05-12  3:33 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] arm64: dts: realtek: Add GPIO support for RTD1625 Yu-Chun Lin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260512153745.3ec68675@jic23-huawei \
    --to=jic23@kernel.org \
    --cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
    --cc=afaerber@suse.com \
    --cc=andy@kernel.org \
    --cc=brgl@kernel.org \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=cy.huang@realtek.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
    --cc=eleanor.lin@realtek.com \
    --cc=james.tai@realtek.com \
    --cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=lars@metafoo.de \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linusw@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-realtek-soc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com \
    --cc=mwalle@kernel.org \
    --cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=stanley_chang@realtek.com \
    --cc=tychang@realtek.com \
    --cc=wbg@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox