Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 3 authors, 2016-04-18

[PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: Add Oxford Semiconductor OXNAS pinctrl and gpio driver

From: Neil Armstrong <hidden>
Date: 2016-04-18 08:26:12
Also in: linux-gpio, lkml

On 04/13/2016 03:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Neil Armstrong [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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 :)
quoted
+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.
Sure, I'll remove it.
quoted
+       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 :/
It seems I'll need to stick with this for the moment :/
quoted
+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...
Actually, arch_initcall seems the best level to permit further device to get interrupts from these gpio controllers, AFAIK quite all the upstream pinctrl driver uses arch_ or subsys_.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Thanks,
Neil
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help