[PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: qcom: disable GPIO groups with no pins
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-14 17:11:50
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-gpio
On 07/13, Timur Tabi wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c index 273badd..e915db4 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c@@ -165,7 +165,22 @@ static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, return 0; } +/* + * Request a GPIO. If the number of pins for this GPIO group is zero, + * then assume that the GPIO is unavailable. + */ +static int msm_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int offset)
These names are awful. Reminds me of the serial driver that has functions like msm_reset(). But when in Rome this is how it goes I suppose.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+{ + struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev); + const struct msm_pingroup *g; + + g = &pctrl->soc->groups[offset]; + + return g->npins ? 0 : -ENODEV; +} + static const struct pinmux_ops msm_pinmux_ops = { + .request = msm_request, .get_functions_count = msm_get_functions_count, .get_function_name = msm_get_function_name, .get_function_groups = msm_get_function_groups,@@ -430,6 +445,14 @@ static int msm_gpio_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset) g = &pctrl->soc->groups[offset]; + /* + * If the GPIO is unavailable, just return error. This is necessary + * because the GPIO layer tries to initialize the direction of all + * the GPIOs, even the ones that are unavailable. + */ + if (!g->npins) + return -ENODEV; +
gpiochips also have a request() hook. Can we use that before initializing direction to make sure the GPIO is accessible?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
val = readl(pctrl->regs + g->ctl_reg); /* 0 = output, 1 = input */@@ -503,7 +531,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_dbg_show_one(struct seq_file *s, seq_printf(s, " %-8s: %-3s %d", g->name, is_out ? "out" : "in", func); seq_printf(s, " %dmA", msm_regval_to_drive(drive)); - seq_printf(s, " %s", pulls[pull]); + seq_printf(s, " %s\n", pulls[pull]); } static void msm_gpio_dbg_show(struct seq_file *s, struct gpio_chip *chip)@@ -511,10 +539,8 @@ static void msm_gpio_dbg_show(struct seq_file *s, struct gpio_chip *chip) unsigned gpio = chip->base; unsigned i; - for (i = 0; i < chip->ngpio; i++, gpio++) { + for (i = 0; i < chip->ngpio; i++, gpio++) msm_gpio_dbg_show_one(s, NULL, chip, i, gpio); - seq_puts(s, "\n"); - } }
Were these two hunks necessary? Looks like noise. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project