Hi Biju,
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM Biju Das <[email protected]> wrote:
> GPIO hole is present in RZ/G1C SoC. Valid GPIO pins on bank3 are in the
> range GP3_0 to GP3_16 and GP3_27 to GP3_29. The GPIO pins between GP3_17
> to GP3_26 are unused. Add support for handling unused GPIO's.
>
> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Fabrizio Castro <[email protected]>
> ---
> V1-->V2
> * Added gpio-reserved-ranges support for handling
> unused gpios.
Thanks for the update!
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ struct gpio_rcar_bank_info {
> u32 edglevel;
> u32 bothedge;
> u32 intmsk;
> + u32 gpiomsk;
I think you can do without adding this variable (see below).
> };
>
> struct gpio_rcar_priv {
> @@ -252,6 +253,9 @@ static int gpio_rcar_request(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> unsigned offset)
> struct gpio_rcar_priv *p = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> int error;
>
> + if (!gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
Perhaps this check should be added to gpiod_request_commit(), so not all
drivers (currently drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c) have to check it
themselves?
> error = pm_runtime_get_sync(&p->pdev->dev);
> if (error < 0)
> return error;
> @@ -313,6 +317,9 @@ static void gpio_rcar_set_multiple(struct gpio_chip
> *chip, unsigned long *mask,
> unsigned long flags;
> u32 val, bankmask;
>
> + if (chip->valid_mask && (mask[0] & p->bank_info.gpiomsk))
> + return;
> +
You can use chip->valid_mask[0] instead of p->bank_info.gpiomsk.
However, instead of returning, I would just ignore any invalid bits set.
Bits > chip->ngpio are already ignored below...
> bankmask = mask[0] & GENMASK(chip->ngpio - 1, 0);
... so just add:
if (chip->valid_mask)
bankmask &= chip->valid_mask[0];
However, if you force gpiochip->need_valid_mask = true, you can just use
bankmask = mask[0] & chip->valid_mask[0];
unconditionally.
> if (!bankmask)
> return;
> @@ -399,7 +406,8 @@ static int gpio_rcar_parse_dt(struct gpio_rcar_priv *p,
> unsigned int *npins)
> struct device_node *np = p->pdev->dev.of_node;
> const struct gpio_rcar_info *info;
> struct of_phandle_args args;
> - int ret;
> + int ret, len, i;
> + u32 start, count;
>
> info = of_device_get_match_data(&p->pdev->dev);
>
> @@ -414,6 +422,22 @@ static int gpio_rcar_parse_dt(struct gpio_rcar_priv *p,
> unsigned int *npins)
> *npins = RCAR_MAX_GPIO_PER_BANK;
> }
>
> + p->bank_info.gpiomsk = 0;
> + len = of_property_count_u32_elems(np, "gpio-reserved-ranges");
> + if (len < 0 || len % 2 != 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 2) {
> + of_property_read_u32_index(np, "gpio-reserved-ranges",
> + i, &start);
> + of_property_read_u32_index(np, "gpio-reserved-ranges",
> + i + 1, &count);
> + if (start >= *npins || start + count >= *npins)
> + continue;
> +
> + p->bank_info.gpiomsk = GENMASK(start + count - 1, start);
> + }
of_gpiochip_init_valid_mask() already does the same, for chip->valid_mask.
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -471,6 +495,7 @@ static int gpio_rcar_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> gpio_chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> gpio_chip->base = -1;
> gpio_chip->ngpio = npins;
> + gpio_chip->need_valid_mask = p->bank_info.gpiomsk ? true : false;
gpiochip_init_valid_mask() already sets gpio_chip->need_valid_mask to true
if "gpio-reserved-ranges" is detected.
However, setting it to true unconditionally allow to simplify
gpio_rcar_set_multiple()
and gpio_rcar_resume().
>
> irq_chip = &p->irq_chip;
> irq_chip->name = name;
> @@ -551,6 +576,9 @@ static int gpio_rcar_resume(struct device *dev)
>
> for (offset = 0; offset < p->gpio_chip.ngpio; offset++) {
> mask = BIT(offset);
> + if (p->gpio_chip.valid_mask && (mask & p->bank_info.gpiomsk))
> + continue;
> +
Just do "if (!gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset)) continue;" at the
top of the loop?
However, if you force gpiochip->need_valid_mask = true, you can just replace
the hand-coded for loop by for_each_set_bit().
> /* I/O pin */
> if (!(p->bank_info.iointsel & mask)) {
> if (p->bank_info.inoutsel & mask)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
