----- Mail original -----
De: "Linus Walleij" <[email protected]>
> @@ -2415,7 +2411,13 @@ static int pxa_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct resource *regs;
> struct pxa_udc *udc = &memory;
> - int retval = 0, gpio;
> + struct pxa2xx_udc_mach_info *mach = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> + int retval = 0;
> +
> + if (mach) {
> + udc->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(mach->gpio_pullup);
> + udc->mach = mach;
> + }
> } else {
> udv->gpiod = devm_gpiod_get(&pdev->dev, ...);
> }
> Here you can also use the flags.
Yeah, but my problem is in the if statement, not in the else. The else is for
the DT/ACPI cases, in which there is no problem.
On the other hand, the "if" is for the legacy platform_data cases which bother
me.
The mach info contains :
- gpio_pullup : number of the gpio
- gpio_pullup_inverted : the active low state
What I would have needed would be something like :
if (mach) {
udc->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(mach->gpio_pullup);
gpiod_MAGIC_FUNC_set_flags(udc->gpiod, mach->gpio_pullup_inverted ?
ACTIVE_LOW : 0);
udc->mach = mach;
} else {
udv->gpiod = devm_gpiod_get(&pdev->dev, ...);
}
The "MAGIC_FUNC" is what I'm missing here. And I agree this is something that
is bound in
electronics, and eventually will have to be shifted to platform code. The
porting issue I
have is that I don't want the dependency of changing *all* pxa27x machines as a
dependency
for a patch to pxa27x_udc to support device-tree.
Or alternatively have something like :
udc->gpiod = gpio_to_desc_with_flags(mach->gpio_pullup, flags).
Or another way, to enable a smooth transition without the dependency.
Even I have not found any machine code using this inverted flag, I might have
overlooked
something, and I'm not feeling confortable killing a platform because I made a
wrong
decision.
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
