Re: [RFC] gpio/omap: auto-setup a GPIO when used as an IRQ
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: 2013-09-23 16:45:36
Also in:
linux-gpio, linux-omap, lkml
* Javier Martinez Canillas [off-list ref] [130922 07:49]:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c@@ -420,6 +420,29 @@ static int _set_gpio_triggering(struct gpio_bank *bank, int gpio, return 0; } +static void _set_gpio_mode(struct gpio_bank *bank, unsigned offset) +{ + if (bank->regs->pinctrl) { + void __iomem *reg = bank->base + bank->regs->pinctrl; + + /* Claim the pin for MPU */ + __raw_writel(__raw_readl(reg) | (1 << offset), reg); + } + + if (bank->regs->ctrl && !bank->mod_usage) { + void __iomem *reg = bank->base + bank->regs->ctrl; + u32 ctrl; + + ctrl = __raw_readl(reg); + /* Module is enabled, clocks are not gated */ + ctrl &= ~GPIO_MOD_CTRL_BIT; + __raw_writel(ctrl, reg); + bank->context.ctrl = ctrl; + } + + bank->mod_usage |= 1 << offset; +} + static int gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned type) { struct gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);@@ -427,8 +450,8 @@ static int gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned type) int retval; unsigned long flags; - if (WARN_ON(!bank->mod_usage)) - return -EINVAL; + if (!bank->mod_usage) + pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev); #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 if (d->irq > IH_MPUIO_BASE)@@ -438,6 +461,11 @@ static int gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned type) if (!gpio) gpio = irq_to_gpio(bank, d->hwirq); + spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock, flags); + _set_gpio_mode(bank, GPIO_INDEX(bank, gpio)); + _set_gpio_direction(bank, GPIO_INDEX(bank, gpio), 1); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags); + if (type & ~IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK) return -EINVAL;
Hmm does this still work for legacy platform data based drivers that are doing gpio_request() first? And what's the path for clearing things for PM when free_irq() gets called? It seems that this would leave the GPIO bank enabled causing a PM regression? Other than the two concerns above it seems that this might be the way to go to fix the regression for the -rc cycle. Regards, Tony