> From: Giuseppe Cavallaro <[email protected]>
>
> This patch adds a new logic inside the st pinctrl to manage
> an unsupported scenario: some sysconfig are not available!
>
> This is the case of STiH407 where, although documented, the
> following registers from SYSCFG_FLASH have been removed from the SoC.
>
> SYSTEM_CONFIG3040
> Output Enable pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
> and
> SYSTEM_ CONFIG3050
> Pull Up pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
>
> Without managing this condition an imprecise external abort
> will be detect.
>
> To do this the patch also reviews the st_parse_syscfgs
> and other routines to manipulate the registers only if
> actually available.
> In any case, for example the st_parse_syscfgs detected
> an error condition but no action was made in the
> st_pctl_probe_dt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Cavallaro <[email protected]>
These two SOBs need reordering.
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 106
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> index 9fb66aa..1721611 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> @@ -410,25 +410,27 @@ static void st_pinconf_set_config(struct st_pio_control
> *pc,
> unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value;
> unsigned long mask = BIT(pin);
>
> - regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value);
> - regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value);
> - regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value);
> -
> - /* Clear old values */
> - oe_value &= ~mask;
> - pu_value &= ~mask;
> - od_value &= ~mask;
> -
> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE)
> - oe_value |= mask;
> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU)
> - pu_value |= mask;
> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD)
> - od_value |= mask;
> -
> - regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value);
> - regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value);
> - regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value);
> + if (output_enable) {
> + regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value);
> + oe_value &= ~mask;
> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE)
> + oe_value |= mask;
> + regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value);
> + }
> + if (pull_up) {
> + regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value);
> + pu_value &= ~mask;
> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU)
> + pu_value |= mask;
> + regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value);
> + }
> + if (open_drain) {
> + regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value);
> + od_value &= ~mask;
> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD)
> + od_value |= mask;
> + regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value);
> + }
Nice change.
Nit: For consistency with the changes below, please consider placing
new lines between the 3 outer checks.
> }
>
<snip>
> -static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc,
> - int pin, unsigned long *config)
> +static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc, int pin,
> + unsigned long *config)
Unrelated change?
> {
> unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value;
Is it worth checking for (!config) here?
> - regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value);
> - regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value);
> - regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value);
> + if (pc->oe) {
> + regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value);
> + if (oe_value & BIT(pin))
> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config);
> + }
>
> - if (oe_value & BIT(pin))
> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config);
> - if (pu_value & BIT(pin))
> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config);
> - if (od_value & BIT(pin))
> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config);
> + if (pc->pu) {
> + regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value);
> + if (pu_value & BIT(pin))
> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config);
> + }
>
> + if (pc->od) {
> + regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value);
> + if (od_value & BIT(pin))
> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config);
> + }
> }
Nice.
> static int st_pinconf_get_retime_packed(struct st_pinctrl *info,
> @@ -1105,8 +1116,21 @@ static int st_pctl_dt_setup_retime(struct st_pinctrl
> *info,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> -static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info,
> - int bank, struct device_node *np)
> +
> +static struct regmap_field *st_pc_get_value(struct device *dev,
> + struct regmap *regmap, int bank,
> + int data, int lsb, int msb)
> +{
> + struct reg_field reg = REG_FIELD((data + bank) * 4, lsb, msb);
> +
> + if (data < 0)
> + return NULL;
What happens is data < 0 and it's used in REG_FIELD?
Would it make more sense to make this check before calling REG_FIELD?
> + return devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, reg);
> +}
> +
> +static void st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info, int bank,
> + struct device_node *np)
> {
> const struct st_pctl_data *data = info->data;
> /**
> @@ -1116,29 +1140,21 @@ static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info,
> */
> int lsb = (bank%4) * ST_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK;
> int msb = lsb + ST_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK - 1;
> - struct reg_field alt_reg = REG_FIELD((data->alt + bank) * 4, 0, 31);
> - struct reg_field oe_reg = REG_FIELD((data->oe + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb);
> - struct reg_field pu_reg = REG_FIELD((data->pu + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb);
> - struct reg_field od_reg = REG_FIELD((data->od + bank/4) * 4, lsb, msb);
> struct st_pio_control *pc = &info->banks[bank].pc;
> struct device *dev = info->dev;
> struct regmap *regmap = info->regmap;
>
> - pc->alt = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, alt_reg);
> - pc->oe = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, oe_reg);
> - pc->pu = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, pu_reg);
> - pc->od = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, regmap, od_reg);
> -
> - if (IS_ERR(pc->alt) || IS_ERR(pc->oe) ||
> - IS_ERR(pc->pu) || IS_ERR(pc->od))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + pc->alt = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank, data->alt, 0, 31);
> + pc->oe = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->oe, lsb, msb);
> + pc->pu = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->pu, lsb, msb);
> + pc->od = st_pc_get_value(dev, regmap, bank/4, data->od, lsb, msb);
>
> /* retime avaiable for all pins by default */
> pc->rt_pin_mask = 0xff;
> of_property_read_u32(np, "st,retime-pin-mask", &pc->rt_pin_mask);
> st_pctl_dt_setup_retime(info, bank, pc);
>
> - return 0;
> + return;
> }
>
> /*
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
