Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] gpio: davinci: add OF support

[Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>]

On 11/25/2013 01:00 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 11:45 PM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>> From: KV Sujith <sujithkv@ti.com>
>>
>> This patch adds OF parser support for davinci gpio
>> driver and also appropriate documentation in gpio-davinci.txt
>> located at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/.
>>
>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
>> Signed-off-by: KV Sujith <sujithkv@ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Avinash <avinashphilip@ti.com>
>> [prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com: simplified the OF code, removed
>> 		unnecessary DT property and also simplified
>> 		the commit message]
>> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt      |   41 ++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c                        |   57 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>   2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a2e839d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-davinci.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
>> +Davinci GPIO controller bindings
>> +
>> +Required Properties:
>> +- compatible: should be "ti,dm6441-gpio"
>> +
>> +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and the size of memory mapped
>> +       registers.
>> +
>> +- gpio-controller : Marks the device node as a gpio controller.
>> +
>> +- interrupt-parent: phandle of the parent interrupt controller.
>> +
>> +- interrupts: Array of GPIO interrupt number. Only banked or unbanked IRQs are
>> +	      supported at a time.
> 
> If this is true..
> 
>> +
>> +- ti,ngpio: The number of GPIO pins supported.
>> +
>> +- ti,davinci-gpio-unbanked: The number of GPIOs that have an individual interrupt
>> +		             line to processor.
> 
> .. then why do you need to maintain this separately? Number of elements
> in interrupts property should give you this answer, no?
> 
> There can certainly be devices (past and future) which use a mixture of
> banked and unbanked IRQs. So a binding which does not take care of this
> is likely to change in future and that is a problem since it brings in
> backward compatibility of the binding into picture.
> 
> The right thing would be to define the DT node per-bank similar to what
> is done on OMAP rather than for all banks together. That way there can
> be a separate property which determines whether that bank supports
> direct-mapped or banked IRQs (or that could be inferred if the number of
> tuples in the interrupts property is more than one).

Number of IRQ can't be simply used to determine type of IRQ - need to handle IRQ names,
because each bank(32 gpios) may have up to 2 banked IRQs (one per 16 GPIO).

Few things here:
- The mixed banked/unbanked functionality has never been supported before. 
- The Davinci GPIO IP is different from OMAP and has common
  control registers for all banks.
- The proposed approach is more less easy to implement for DT case, but for not-DT
  case - the platform data will need to be changed significantly (.
  So, from this point of view, that would be a big change (actually the total driver rewriting).

Do you have any thoughts about how it can be done in a simpler way?

Actually, the same was proposed by Linus, but we've tried avoid such huge rework -
by switching to one irq_domain per all banks for example.

Regards,
- grygorii