On 07:58 Tue 18 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 06:55 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> >>> On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> /* Do
On 07:58 Tue 18 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/18/2012 06:55 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data
On 12/18/2012 06:55 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
On 12/17/2012 10:33 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> On 17/12/12 20:47, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio +
On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >>/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
> >>__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
> >>__raw_writel(mask, pio
On 17/12/12 20:47, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> /* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
>>> __raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
>>> __raw_writel(mask, pio +
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> /* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
>> __raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
>> __raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
>> __raw_writel(val, pio + PIO_ODSR);
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> /* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
> __raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
> __raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
> __raw_writel(val, pio + PIO_ODSR);
>
> For caching we would need a storage. Not
On 12/17/2012 06:15 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 05:28 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>>> Hi Wolfgang,
And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of
On 12/17/2012 05:28 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>> And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
>>> simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we need to
On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On 12/17/2012 02:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
>> simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
>>
>> I wonder if we need to
On 12/17/2012 01:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:51:32PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> +static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
>> mask, unsigned long val)
>> +{
>> +struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio =
Hi Wolfgang,
On 12/17/2012 02:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
> simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
>
> I wonder if we need to save/restore the state of OWSR at every write
> operation or if
On 12/17/2012 12:51 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Without having an AT91 available right now, I guess the hardware
>>> interface of this GPIO chip is different from the GPIO block API. While
>>> the hardware has clear and set registers, the val parameter of
>>> at91_gpiolib_set_block() should
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:51:32PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> +static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
> mask, unsigned long val)
> +{
> + struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
> + void __iomem *pio = at91_gpio->regbase;
> +
On 12/17/2012 12:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hi Roland,
>
> On 12/15/2012 12:49 AM, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> thank you for the patch!
>>
>> On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> +static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
>>>
Hi Roland,
On 12/15/2012 12:49 AM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> thank you for the patch!
>
> On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> +static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
>> mask, unsigned long val)
>> +{
>> +struct at91_gpio_chip
On 12/17/2012 05:28 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
I wonder if we need to save/restore the
On 12/17/2012 06:15 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 05:28 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
__raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
__raw_writel(val, pio + PIO_ODSR);
For caching we would need a storage. Not sure if
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
__raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
__raw_writel(val, pio + PIO_ODSR);
For
On 17/12/12 20:47, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
__raw_writel(mask, pio + PIO_OWER);
On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
__raw_writel(mask, pio +
On 12/17/2012 10:33 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 17/12/12 20:47, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
__raw_writel(~mask, pio + PIO_OWDR);
On 12/18/2012 06:55 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 20:47 Mon 17 Dec , Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 12/17/2012 07:02 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
/* Do synchronous data output with a single write access */
Hi Roland,
On 12/15/2012 12:49 AM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
thank you for the patch!
On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
mask, unsigned long val)
+{
+struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio =
On 12/17/2012 12:37 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Hi Roland,
On 12/15/2012 12:49 AM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
thank you for the patch!
On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
mask, unsigned long
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:51:32PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
mask, unsigned long val)
+{
+ struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
+ void __iomem *pio = at91_gpio-regbase;
+ u32
On 12/17/2012 12:51 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Without having an AT91 available right now, I guess the hardware
interface of this GPIO chip is different from the GPIO block API. While
the hardware has clear and set registers, the val parameter of
at91_gpiolib_set_block() should be
Hi Wolfgang,
On 12/17/2012 02:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
I wonder if we need to save/restore the state of OWSR at every write
operation or if we
On 12/17/2012 01:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:51:32PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
mask, unsigned long val)
+{
+struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
On 12/17/2012 02:51 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
On 12/17/2012 02:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
And I guess Russell is right: If possible, we should write outputs
simultaneously via ODSR (plus OWER/OWDR/OWSR) instead of separate set/clear.
I wonder if we need to save/restore the
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:49:57AM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Without having an AT91 available right now, I guess the hardware
> interface of this GPIO chip is different from the GPIO block API. While
> the hardware has clear and set registers, the val parameter of
> at91_gpiolib_set_block()
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:49:57AM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
Without having an AT91 available right now, I guess the hardware
interface of this GPIO chip is different from the GPIO block API. While
the hardware has clear and set registers, the val parameter of
at91_gpiolib_set_block() should
Hi Wolfgang,
thank you for the patch!
On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> +static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
> mask, unsigned long val)
> +{
> + struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
> + void __iomem *pio =
On 12/14/2012 03:26 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> This set of patches adds:
>
> * Block GPIO API to gpiolib
> * Sysfs support for GPIO API, to provide userland access
> * Device interface for userland access (alternative to sysfs)
> * Devicetree support to instantiate GPIO blocks via DT
> * Example
This set of patches adds:
* Block GPIO API to gpiolib
* Sysfs support for GPIO API, to provide userland access
* Device interface for userland access (alternative to sysfs)
* Devicetree support to instantiate GPIO blocks via DT
* Example implementations in several gpio drivers since they need
This set of patches adds:
* Block GPIO API to gpiolib
* Sysfs support for GPIO API, to provide userland access
* Device interface for userland access (alternative to sysfs)
* Devicetree support to instantiate GPIO blocks via DT
* Example implementations in several gpio drivers since they need
On 12/14/2012 03:26 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
This set of patches adds:
* Block GPIO API to gpiolib
* Sysfs support for GPIO API, to provide userland access
* Device interface for userland access (alternative to sysfs)
* Devicetree support to instantiate GPIO blocks via DT
* Example
Hi Wolfgang,
thank you for the patch!
On 14/12/12 18:58, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
+static void at91_gpiolib_set_block(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long
mask, unsigned long val)
+{
+ struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = to_at91_gpio_chip(chip);
+ void __iomem *pio =
40 matches
Mail list logo
