* Haojian Zhuang [off-list ref] [121022 09:11]:
quoted hunk
Marvell's PXA/MMP silicon also match the behavior of pinctrl-single.
Each pin binds to one register. A lot of pins could be configured
as gpio.
Now add three properties in below.
pinctrl-single,gpio-ranges: gpio range array
pinctrl-single,gpio: <gpio base, npins in range, pin base in range>
pinctrl-single,gpio-func: <gpio function value in mux>
Signed-off-by: Haojian Zhuang <redacted>
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index 726a729..6a0b24b 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -28,8 +28,10 @@
#define DRIVER_NAME "pinctrl-single"
#define PCS_MUX_PINS_NAME "pinctrl-single,pins"
#define PCS_MUX_BITS_NAME "pinctrl-single,bits"
+#define PCS_GPIO_FUNC_NAME "pinctrl-single,gpio-func"
I think we can now get rid of these defines, I initially added
them as we had a bit hard time finding a suitable name for the
driver. These are only used in one location, so let's not add
new ones here.
static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
- struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned offset)
+ struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range, unsigned pin)
{
- return -ENOTSUPP;
+ struct pcs_device *pcs = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
+ struct pcs_gpio_range *gpio = NULL;
+ int end, mux_bytes;
+ unsigned data;
+
+ gpio = container_of(range, struct pcs_gpio_range, range);
+ if (!gpio->func_en)
+ return 0;
+ end = range->pin_base + range->npins - 1;
+ if (pin < range->pin_base || pin > end) {
+ dev_err(pctldev->dev, "pin %d isn't in the range of "
+ "%d to %d\n", pin, range->pin_base, end);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
+ data = pcs_readl(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
+ data |= gpio->gpio_func;
+ pcs_writel(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+ return 0;
}
I think I already commented on this one.. Is this safe if you don't
have GPIOs configured? Or should you return -ENODEV in that case?
+static int __devinit pcs_add_gpio_range(struct device_node *node,
+ struct pcs_device *pcs)
+{
+ struct pcs_gpio_range *gpio;
+ struct device_node *np;
+ const __be32 *list;
+ const char list_name[] = "pinctrl-single,gpio-ranges";
+ const char name[] = "pinctrl-single";
+ u32 gpiores[PCS_MAX_GPIO_VALUES];
+ int ret, size, i, mux_bytes = 0;
+
+ list = of_get_property(node, list_name, &size);
+ if (!list)
+ return -ENOENT;
Here you should return 0 if not found, otherwise things go bad for
me at least as I don't have GPIOs configured. See more below.
+ gpio->range.name = kmemdup(name, sizeof(name), GFP_KERNEL);
+ pinctrl_add_gpio_range(pcs->pctl, &gpio->range);
Just checking.. These get released with pinctrl_unregister() when
unloading, right? And nothing else to free in pinctrl-single.c
either?
quoted hunk
@@ -975,6 +1061,10 @@ static int __devinit pcs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
goto free;
}
+ ret = pcs_add_gpio_range(np, pcs);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
Here you need to goto free on error. Maybe just fold in the
attached fix if that looks OK to you:
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -930,7 +930,7 @@ static int __devinit pcs_add_gpio_range(struct device_node *node,
list = of_get_property(node, list_name, &size);
if (!list)
- return -ENOENT;
+ return 0;
size = size / sizeof(*list);
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
np = of_parse_phandle(node, list_name, i);@@ -1065,7 +1065,7 @@ static int __devinit pcs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
ret = pcs_add_gpio_range(np, pcs);
if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ goto free;
dev_info(pcs->dev, "%i pins at pa %p size %u\n",
pcs->desc.npins, pcs->base, pcs->size);