[U-Boot] [PATCH 06/10] dm: imx: Use gpio_request() to request GPIOs

Igor Grinberg
2014-09-15T17:13:28Z

Hi Simon,

On 09/15/14 15:57, Simon Glass wrote:
> GPIOs should be requested before use. Without this, driver model will not
> permit the GPIO to be used.

Right. That should have been done from the start... Sorry for that...
A question below though..

>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/imx-common/i2c-mxv7.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c | 9 +++++++++
> board/compulab/cm_fx6/common.c | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/imx-common/i2c-mxv7.c b/arch/arm/imx-common/i2c-mxv7.c
> index a580873..7cea024 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/imx-common/i2c-mxv7.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/imx-common/i2c-mxv7.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> */
> #include <common.h>
> +#include <malloc.h>
> #include <asm/arch/clock.h>
> #include <asm/arch/imx-regs.h>
> #include <asm/errno.h>
> @@ -72,8 +73,21 @@ static void * const i2c_bases[] = {
> void setup_i2c(unsigned i2c_index, int speed, int slave_addr,
> struct i2c_pads_info *p)
> {
> + char *name;
> +
> if (i2c_index >= ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_bases))
> return;
> +
> + name = malloc(9);
> + assert(name);
> + sprintf(name, "i2c_sda%d", i2c_index);
> + gpio_request(p->sda.gp, name);
> +
> + name = malloc(9);
> + assert(name);
> + sprintf(name, "i2c_scl%d", i2c_index);
> + gpio_request(p->scl.gp, name);
> +
> /* Enable i2c clock */
> enable_i2c_clk(1, i2c_index);
> /* Make sure bus is idle */
> diff --git a/board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c b/board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c
> index fdb8ebf..80a123d 100644
> --- a/board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c
> +++ b/board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c
> @@ -71,8 +71,15 @@ static iomux_v3_cfg_t const sata_pads[] = {
>
> static void cm_fx6_setup_issd(void)
> {
> + int i;
> +
> SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(sata_pads);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cm_fx6_issd_gpios); i++)
> + gpio_request(cm_fx6_issd_gpios[i], "sata");
> +
> /* Make sure this gpio has logical 0 value */
> + gpio_request(CM_FX6_SATA_PWLOSS_INT, "sata_pwloss_int");
> gpio_direction_output(CM_FX6_SATA_PWLOSS_INT, 0);
> udelay(100);
>
> @@ -167,6 +174,7 @@ static int cm_fx6_usb_hub_reset(void)
> }
>
> SETUP_IOMUX_PAD(PAD_SD3_RST__GPIO7_IO08 | MUX_PAD_CTRL(NO_PAD_CTRL));
> + gpio_request(CM_FX6_USB_HUB_RST, "usb_hub_rst");
> gpio_direction_output(CM_FX6_USB_HUB_RST, 0);
> udelay(10);
> gpio_direction_output(CM_FX6_USB_HUB_RST, 1);
> @@ -324,6 +332,7 @@ int board_eth_init(bd_t *bis)
>
> SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(enet_pads);
> /* phy reset */
> + gpio_request(CM_FX6_ENET_NRST, "enet_nrst");
> gpio_direction_output(CM_FX6_ENET_NRST, 0);
> udelay(500);
> gpio_set_value(CM_FX6_ENET_NRST, 1);
> diff --git a/board/compulab/cm_fx6/common.c b/board/compulab/cm_fx6/common.c
> index 1f39679..562313b 100644
> --- a/board/compulab/cm_fx6/common.c
> +++ b/board/compulab/cm_fx6/common.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,9 @@ void cm_fx6_set_ecspi_iomux(void)
>
> int board_spi_cs_gpio(unsigned bus, unsigned cs)
> {
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> + gpio_request(CM_FX6_ECSPI_BUS0_CS0, "ecspi_bus0_cs0");
> +#endif
> return (bus == 0 && cs == 0) ? (CM_FX6_ECSPI_BUS0_CS0) : -1;
> }
> #endif
>

In all the above gpio_request() calls, I think we should check for
the return value.
Because after patch 8 in the series it can fail if if someone
double requests the same gpio.

--
Regards,
Igor.