Hi Philipp,
Quoting Philipp Zabel <philipp.za...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM Tom Burkart <t...@aussec.com> wrote:
This patch changes the GPIO access for the pps-gpio driver from the
integer based ABI to the descriptor based ABI. It also adds the
extraction of the device tree capture-clear option.
Is the capture-clear property documented in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pps/pps-gpio.txt?
If not, you should add a binding documentation patch.
Yes, that is in patch 1/4
Signed-off-by: Tom Burkart <t...@aussec.com>
---
drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c | 80
+++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
include/linux/pps-gpio.h | 3 +-
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
index 333ad7d5b45b..d2fbc91dc8fc 100644
--- a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/pps_kernel.h>
#include <linux/pps-gpio.h>
-#include <linux/gpio.h>
+#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/of_device.h>
#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
@@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ struct pps_gpio_device_data {
int irq; /* IRQ used as PPS source */
struct pps_device *pps; /* PPS source device */
struct pps_source_info info; /* PPS source information */
+ struct gpio_desc *gpio_pin; /* GPIO port descriptors */
bool assert_falling_edge;
bool capture_clear;
- unsigned int gpio_pin;
};
/*
@@ -61,18 +61,49 @@ static irqreturn_t pps_gpio_irq_handler(int
irq, void *data)
info = data;
- rising_edge = gpio_get_value(info->gpio_pin);
+ rising_edge = gpiod_get_value(info->gpio_pin);
if ((rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge) ||
(!rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge))
pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTUREASSERT, NULL);
else if (info->capture_clear &&
((rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge) ||
- (!rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge)))
+ (!rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge)))
pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTURECLEAR, NULL);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
+static int pps_gpio_setup(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct pps_gpio_device_data *data = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ const struct pps_gpio_platform_data *pdata =
pdev->dev.platform_data;
+ struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
+ int ret;
Unused variable?
Oops, yes, in this patch (2/4), but not in patch 4/4
+
+ if (pdata) {
+ data->gpio_pin = pdata->gpio_pin;
+
+ data->assert_falling_edge = pdata->assert_falling_edge;
+ data->capture_clear = pdata->capture_clear;
This is just a matter of personal taste, so feel free to ignore:
I would keep the pdata branch in pps_gpio_probe and call this function
pps_gpio_dt_setup, to reduce indentation of the OF branch.
Ok, I am happy to agree as it makes sense.
+ } else {
+ data->gpio_pin = devm_gpiod_get(&pdev->dev,
+ NULL, /* request "gpios" */
+ GPIOD_IN);
+ if (IS_ERR(data->gpio_pin)) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev,
+ "failed to request PPS GPIO\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(data->gpio_pin);
+ }
+
+ if (of_get_property(np, "assert-falling-edge", NULL))
+ data->assert_falling_edge = true;
+
+ if (of_get_property(np, "capture-clear", NULL))
+ data->capture_clear = true;
Those two should use the of_property_read_bool wrapper.
Thanks.
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
static unsigned long
get_irqf_trigger_flags(const struct pps_gpio_device_data *data)
{
@@ -90,53 +121,23 @@ get_irqf_trigger_flags(const struct
pps_gpio_device_data *data)
static int pps_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct pps_gpio_device_data *data;
- const char *gpio_label;
int ret;
int pps_default_params;
- const struct pps_gpio_platform_data *pdata =
pdev->dev.platform_data;
- struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
/* allocate space for device info */
data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct pps_gpio_device_data),
Could use sizeof(*data) here. Otherwise,
Fine with me.
Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <philipp.za...@gmail.com>
Is this for patch 2/4 only or the others as well?
Will generate v10 of the patch and post it again.
