On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> This patch fixes some bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO.
>
> 1) in enable_sensor(), eliminate the complicated check on ATTN and just
> call process_interrupt_requests(). This will have minimal overhead if ATTN
> is not asserted, and clears the state of the RMI4 device in any case.
>
> 2) Correctly free the GPIO in rmi_driver_remove().
>
> 3) in rmi_driver_probe()
> - declare the name of the attention gpio (GPIO_LABEL)
> - use gpio_request_one() to get the gpio and export it.
> - simplify (somewhat) conditional gpio acquisition logic and combine
> with interrupt setup
>
> 4) use gpio_is_valid() instead of comparing to 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <[email protected]>
> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c: In function ‘rmi_driver_probe’:
drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c:920:8: error: ‘struct rmi_driver_data’
has no member named ‘gpio_held’
data->gpio_held = true;
You forgot to include header file changes...
>
> ---
>
> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 64
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> index 2ae9af9..766954f 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> @@ -140,7 +140,6 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
> struct rmi_driver_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev);
> struct rmi_transport_dev *xport;
> int retval = 0;
> - struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata = to_rmi_platform_data(rmi_dev);
>
> if (data->enabled)
> return 0;
> @@ -169,11 +168,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
>
> data->enabled = true;
>
> - if (!pdata->level_triggered &&
> - gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity)
> - retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> -
> - return retval;
> + return process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> }
>
> static void rmi_free_function_list(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
> @@ -800,13 +795,21 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rmi_driver_pm,
> rmi_driver_suspend, rmi_driver_resume);
> static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = to_rmi_device(dev);
> + const struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata =
> + to_rmi_platform_data(rmi_dev);
> + const struct rmi_driver_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev);
>
> disable_sensor(rmi_dev);
> rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev);
>
> + if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->attn_gpio) && data->gpio_held)
> + gpio_free(pdata->attn_gpio);
You only need to check data->gpio_held here...
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn";
> +
While you are updating paatch could you move it in rmi_driver_probe()
under if (gpio_is_valid()).
By the way, maybe we should have platform supply gpio name or, in its
absence, generate unique gpio name, so that we could have several RMI
devices be present in a box?
That can be a followup patch at a later time.
> static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver;
> @@ -937,7 +940,9 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> mutex_init(&data->suspend_mutex);
> }
>
> - if (pdata->attn_gpio) {
> + if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->attn_gpio)) {
> + ulong gpio_flags = GPIOF_DIR_IN;
> +
> data->irq = gpio_to_irq(pdata->attn_gpio);
> if (pdata->level_triggered) {
> data->irq_flags = IRQF_ONESHOT |
> @@ -948,6 +953,32 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> (pdata->attn_polarity == RMI_ATTN_ACTIVE_HIGH)
> ? IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING : IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING;
> }
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV))
> + gpio_flags |= GPIOF_EXPORT;
> + retval = gpio_request_one(pdata->attn_gpio, gpio_flags,
> + GPIO_LABEL);
> + if (retval) {
> + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d,
> code=%d.\n",
> + pdata->attn_gpio, retval);
> + retval = 0;
> + } else {
> + dev_info(dev, "Obtained ATTN gpio %d.\n",
> + pdata->attn_gpio);
> + data->gpio_held = true;
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV)) {
> + retval = gpio_export_link(dev,
> + GPIO_LABEL,
> pdata->attn_gpio);
> + if (retval) {
> + dev_warn(dev,
> + "WARNING: Failed to symlink
> ATTN gpio!\n");
> + retval = 0;
> + } else {
> + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN gpio %d.",
> + pdata->attn_gpio);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> } else
} else {
> data->poll_interval = ktime_set(0,
> (pdata->poll_interval_ms ? pdata->poll_interval_ms :
Another thing I was wondering - polling support is really unusable for
device in production (battery gets killed) so maybe it should be removed
altogether?
> @@ -958,25 +989,6 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> enable_sensor(rmi_dev);
> }
>
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) {
> - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false);
> - if (retval) {
> - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n");
> - retval = 0;
> - } else {
> - retval = gpio_export_link(dev,
> - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio);
> - if (retval) {
> - dev_warn(dev,
> - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN
> gpio!\n");
> - retval = 0;
> - } else {
> - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.",
> - pdata->attn_gpio);
> - }
> - }
> - }
> -
> return 0;
>
> err_free_data:
Thanks!
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
