diff mbox

[4/4] pinctrl: iproc: Allow PINCONF to be disabled completely

Message ID 1460506523-6249-5-git-send-email-ray.jui@broadcom.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Ray Jui April 13, 2016, 12:15 a.m. UTC 
In some of the future iProc based SoCs, pinconf is handled by another
block and the iProc GPIO controller is solely used as a GPIO controller.
This patch adds support of a new compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only",
that is introduced to handle this case, where pinconf functions in this
driver are completely disabled

Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy <yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Comments

Linus Walleij April 15, 2016, 8:24 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> wrote:

> In some of the future iProc based SoCs, pinconf is handled by another
> block and the iProc GPIO controller is solely used as a GPIO controller.
> This patch adds support of a new compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only",
> that is introduced to handle this case, where pinconf functions in this
> driver are completely disabled
>
> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy <yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@broadcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>

If this was entirely true, then the driver should end up only executing
[devm_]gpiochip_add_data() but that does not seem to be the case.

You are still registering a pin controller, right? Just disabling some of
the pin config options. The pin multiplexing is still there, right?
Then it is not "solely a GPIO controller". Not at all.

This patch set needs some elaboration I think.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Ray Jui April 18, 2016, 7:30 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Linus,

On 4/15/2016 1:24 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
>> In some of the future iProc based SoCs, pinconf is handled by another
>> block and the iProc GPIO controller is solely used as a GPIO controller.
>> This patch adds support of a new compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only",
>> that is introduced to handle this case, where pinconf functions in this
>> driver are completely disabled
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy <yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@broadcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>
> If this was entirely true, then the driver should end up only executing
> [devm_]gpiochip_add_data() but that does not seem to be the case.

Yes, in the case of compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only" is 
detected, the driver only registers 'gpiochip_add_data'. Please check 
patch 2/4 of this series, which takes care of it.

>
> You are still registering a pin controller, right? Just disabling some of
> the pin config options. The pin multiplexing is still there, right?
> Then it is not "solely a GPIO controller". Not at all.

This driver does not register itself as a PINCONF driver if 
"brcm,iproc-gpio-only" compatible string is detected. This is addressed 
in patch 2/4 of this series.

Pin based IOMUX GPIO override is only activated when 
'chip->pinmux_is_supported' is true, and it is only true if the optional 
DT property "gpio-ranges" is defined.

>
> This patch set needs some elaboration I think.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>

I believe the current issue with this patch series is now only on the 
naming of the new compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only". Please 
correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks,

Ray

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Linus Walleij April 29, 2016, 8:43 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/2016 1:24 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In some of the future iProc based SoCs, pinconf is handled by another
>>> block and the iProc GPIO controller is solely used as a GPIO controller.
>>> This patch adds support of a new compatible string
>>> "brcm,iproc-gpio-only",
>>> that is introduced to handle this case, where pinconf functions in this
>>> driver are completely disabled
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy
>>> <yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@broadcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>>
>>
>> If this was entirely true, then the driver should end up only executing
>> [devm_]gpiochip_add_data() but that does not seem to be the case.
>
> Yes, in the case of compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only" is detected,
> the driver only registers 'gpiochip_add_data'. Please check patch 2/4 of
> this series, which takes care of it.

OK.

>> You are still registering a pin controller, right? Just disabling some of
>> the pin config options. The pin multiplexing is still there, right?
>> Then it is not "solely a GPIO controller". Not at all.
>
> This driver does not register itself as a PINCONF driver if
> "brcm,iproc-gpio-only" compatible string is detected. This is addressed in
> patch 2/4 of this series.
>
> Pin based IOMUX GPIO override is only activated when
> 'chip->pinmux_is_supported' is true, and it is only true if the optional DT
> property "gpio-ranges" is defined.

OK.

> I believe the current issue with this patch series is now only on the naming
> of the new compatible string "brcm,iproc-gpio-only". Please correct me if
> I'm wrong.

Yeah I think I get it now. The patch set makes sense.
Looking forward to the next iteration!

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c
index 12a8922..bb5cfd9 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c
@@ -716,7 +716,8 @@  static const struct of_device_id iproc_gpio_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "brcm,cygnus-asiu-gpio" },
 	{ .compatible = "brcm,cygnus-crmu-gpio" },
 	{ .compatible = "brcm,iproc-gpio" },
-	{ }
+	{ .compatible = "brcm,iproc-gpio-only" },
+	{ /* sentinel */ }
 };
 
 static int iproc_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -781,24 +782,28 @@  static int iproc_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = iproc_gpio_register_pinconf(chip);
-	if (ret) {
-		dev_err(dev, "unable to register pinconf\n");
-		goto err_rm_gpiochip;
-	}
-
-	/*
-	 * Optional DT property to disable unsupported pinconf parameters for
-	 * a particular iProc SoC
-	 */
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "brcm,pinconf-func-off",
-				   &pinconf_disable_mask);
-	if (!ret) {
-		ret = iproc_pinconf_disable_map_create(chip,
-						       pinconf_disable_mask);
+	if (!of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "brcm,iproc-gpio-only")) {
+		ret = iproc_gpio_register_pinconf(chip);
 		if (ret) {
-			dev_err(dev, "unable to create pinconf disable map\n");
-			goto err_unregister_pinconf;
+			dev_err(dev, "unable to register pinconf\n");
+			goto err_rm_gpiochip;
+		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Optional DT property to disable unsupported pinconf
+		 * parameters for a particular iProc SoC
+		 */
+		ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node,
+					   "brcm,pinconf-func-off",
+					   &pinconf_disable_mask);
+		if (!ret) {
+			ret = iproc_pinconf_disable_map_create(chip,
+							 pinconf_disable_mask);
+			if (ret) {
+				dev_err(dev,
+					"unable to create pinconf disable map\n");
+				goto err_unregister_pinconf;
+			}
 		}
 	}