* Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] [121022 13:29]:

* Haojian Zhuang [off-list ref] [121022 09:11]:

quoted

--- 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.

quoted

 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?

Oops also you should not use pcs_readl/pcs_writel in the driver
directly but use pcs_read instead as you can have register width other
than 32-bits.

Regards,

Tony