diff mbox

[v2,5/5] pinctrl: sunxi: Use pin number when calling sunxi_pmx_set

Message ID 1454448113-18810-6-git-send-email-k@japko.eu (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Krzysztof Adamski Feb. 2, 2016, 9:21 p.m. UTC
sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.

This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Chen-Yu Tsai Feb. 3, 2016, 7:02 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:
> sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
> subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
> gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
> negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.
>
> This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
> pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
> workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> index 7a2465f..9e5bac9 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> @@ -460,14 +460,17 @@ static int sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>         u32 set_mux = pctl->desc->irq_read_needs_mux &&
>                         test_bit(FLAG_USED_AS_IRQ, &chip->desc[offset].flags);
>         u32 val;
> +       u32 pin;
>
> -       if (set_mux)
> -               sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, offset, SUN4I_FUNC_INPUT);
> +       if (set_mux) {
> +               pin = offset + pctl->desc->pin_base;

You can use chip->base directly. It's value is set to pin_base in the
init function.
You could also move this out of the if block, and not add the braces.

Otherwise this looks good.

ChenYu

> +               sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, pin, SUN4I_FUNC_INPUT);
> +       }
>
>         val = (readl(pctl->membase + reg) >> index) & DATA_PINS_MASK;
>
>         if (set_mux)
> -               sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, offset, SUN4I_FUNC_IRQ);
> +               sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, pin, SUN4I_FUNC_IRQ);
>
>         return !!val;
>  }
> --
> 2.1.4
>
Linus Walleij Feb. 11, 2016, 1:17 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:

> sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
> subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
> gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
> negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.
>
> This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
> pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
> workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>

Waiting for Maxime to review this. I guess this patch can be merged
independently of the other patches?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Krzysztof Adamski Feb. 11, 2016, 1:20 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:
>
>> sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
>> subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
>> gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
>> negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.
>>
>> This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
>> pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
>> workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
>
>Waiting for Maxime to review this. I guess this patch can be merged
>independently of the other patches?

Yes it can but it won't have any effect, as stated in the commit 
message, since other SoCs either don't use this flag or have only one 
port so theri pin_base=0.

Best regards,
Krzysztof Adamski
Chen-Yu Tsai Feb. 11, 2016, 1:21 p.m. UTC | #4
Hi,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:
>
>> sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
>> subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
>> gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
>> negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.
>>
>> This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
>> pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
>> workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
>
> Waiting for Maxime to review this. I guess this patch can be merged
> independently of the other patches?

FYI there's a v4 of this patch that both Maxime and I acked.

ChenYu
Linus Walleij Feb. 11, 2016, 1:50 p.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 02:17:41PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> sunxi_pmx_set accepts pin number and then calculates offset by
>>> subtracting pin_base from it. sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get, on the other hand,
>>> gets offset so we have to convert it to pin number so we won't get
>>> negative value in sunxi_pmx_set.
>>>
>>> This was only used on A10 so far, where there is only one GPIO chip with
>>> pin_base set to 0 so it didn't matter. However H3 also requires this
>>> workaround but have two pinmux sections, triggering problem for PL port.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
>>
>>
>> Waiting for Maxime to review this. I guess this patch can be merged
>> independently of the other patches?
>
> Yes it can but it won't have any effect, as stated in the commit message,
> since other SoCs either don't use this flag or have only one port so theri
> pin_base=0.

Who cares as long as it will be used eventually.

Merged v4 as stated earlier.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
index 7a2465f..9e5bac9 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
@@ -460,14 +460,17 @@  static int sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
 	u32 set_mux = pctl->desc->irq_read_needs_mux &&
 			test_bit(FLAG_USED_AS_IRQ, &chip->desc[offset].flags);
 	u32 val;
+	u32 pin;
 
-	if (set_mux)
-		sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, offset, SUN4I_FUNC_INPUT);
+	if (set_mux) {
+		pin = offset + pctl->desc->pin_base;
+		sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, pin, SUN4I_FUNC_INPUT);
+	}
 
 	val = (readl(pctl->membase + reg) >> index) & DATA_PINS_MASK;
 
 	if (set_mux)
-		sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, offset, SUN4I_FUNC_IRQ);
+		sunxi_pmx_set(pctl->pctl_dev, pin, SUN4I_FUNC_IRQ);
 
 	return !!val;
 }