Re: [PATCH] video: s3c-fb: Add device tree support
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-13 21:30:15
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-fbdev, linux-samsung-soc
On 01/13/2012 10:03 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 01/09/2012 09:01 PM, Thomas Abraham wrote:quoted
+ for (idx = 0; idx< nr_gpios; idx++) { + gpio = of_get_gpio(dev->of_node, idx); + if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { + dev_err(dev, "invalid gpio[%d]: %d\n", idx, gpio); + return -EINVAL; + } + + if (!request) + continue; + + ret = gpio_request(gpio, "fimd");Is it how it normally is supposed to be done, i.e. configuring a gpio _before_ it has been requested ? of_get_gpio() indirectly touches the gpio controller and gpio_request() doesn't seem to serve its purpose in this case, i.e. if there is situation like: driver A driver B of_get_gpio(nodeA, gpioA); of_get_gpio(nodeB, gpioA); gpio_request(gpioA); gpio_request(gpioB);
s/B/A
driver B will end up with configuration of gpioA from nodeA, not from nodeB.
ugh, I put it wrong, it should instead read: "driver A will end up with configuration of gpioA from nodeB, not from nodeA."
As there are few drivers doing that I must be missing something, not sure what.. I realize the GPIO number needs to be known in order for a GPIO to be requested. Shouldn't of_get_gpio() be extended to allow locking gpio controller's module and marking a GPIO as requested in advance ?quoted
+ if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "gpio [%d] request failed\n", gpio); + goto gpio_free; + } + sfb->gpios[idx] = gpio; + } + return 0; + +gpio_free: + while (--idx>= 0) + gpio_free(sfb->gpios[idx]); + return ret; +} + +static void s3c_fb_dt_free_gpios(struct s3c_fb *sfb) +{ + unsigned int idx, nr_gpio; + + nr_gpio = sfb->pdata->win[0]->max_bpp + 4; + for (idx = 0; idx< nr_gpio; idx++) + gpio_free(sfb->gpios[idx]); +}