On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Neil Armstrong [off-list ref] wrote:

Add pinctrl and gpio control support to Oxford Semiconductor OXNAS SoC Family.
This version supports the ARM926EJ-S based OX810SE SoC with 34 IO pins.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>

Starting to look very nice :)

+static inline struct oxnas_gpio_bank *irqd_to_bank(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+       return gpiochip_get_data(irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d));
+}

Do you really need to wrap this call? Seems like pointless layer of
abstraction to me.

+       if (of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(np, "gpio-ranges",
+                                            3, 0, &pinspec)) {
+               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "gpio-ranges property not found\n");
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       id = pinspec.args[1] / PINS_PER_BANK;
+       ngpios = pinspec.args[2];
+
+       if (id >= ARRAY_SIZE(oxnas_gpio_banks)) {
+               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid gpio-ranges base arg\n");
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       if (ngpios > PINS_PER_BANK) {
+               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid gpio-ranges count arg\n");
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       bank = &oxnas_gpio_banks[id];

This feels a bit hackish but I guess that is how we have to do things
then :/

+static int __init oxnas_gpio_register(void)
+{
+       return platform_driver_register(&oxnas_gpio_driver);
+}
+arch_initcall(oxnas_gpio_register);
+
+static int __init oxnas_pinctrl_register(void)
+{
+       return platform_driver_register(&oxnas_pinctrl_driver);
+}
+arch_initcall(oxnas_pinctrl_register);

Why do these have to be arch_initcall()?

I'm not very happy with anything below subsys_initcall()
and others prefer that you have only device_initcall().

I need some rationale. Sorry if I already asked...

Yours,
Linus Walleij