| Message ID | 1341930459-25223-6-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 07:57:38PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > The set_level callback in the controller data, which is used to configure > the slave select line, cannot be supported when migrating the driver to > device tree based discovery. Since all the platforms currently use gpio > as the slave select line, this callback can be removed from the > controller data and replaced with call to gpio_set_value in the driver. This is currently buggy, BTW, as the driver never requests the GPIO.
On 10 July 2012 20:08, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 07:57:38PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: >> The set_level callback in the controller data, which is used to configure >> the slave select line, cannot be supported when migrating the driver to >> device tree based discovery. Since all the platforms currently use gpio >> as the slave select line, this callback can be removed from the >> controller data and replaced with call to gpio_set_value in the driver. > > This is currently buggy, BTW, as the driver never requests the GPIO. In non-dt case, the platform code supplying the gpio number (slave select line) is responsible for requesting the gpio during the machine_init call. So the gpio request is not called in the driver for that gpio. In dt case, the 6th patch adds dt support and that patch includes a gpio request call. Hence, this looks okay to me. Please suggest if you still feel that there are changes required. Thanks for reviewing the patches. Regards, Thomas.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:22:31PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > In non-dt case, the platform code supplying the gpio number (slave > select line) is responsible for requesting the gpio during the > machine_init call. So the gpio request is not called in the driver for > that gpio. In dt case, the 6th patch adds dt support and that patch > includes a gpio request call. Hence, this looks okay to me. Please > suggest if you still feel that there are changes required. That's not really particularly sensible given that the changes remove the option to use anything except GPIOs, the GPIO request should be done unconditionally in the driver now.
On 10 July 2012 22:27, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:22:31PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> In non-dt case, the platform code supplying the gpio number (slave >> select line) is responsible for requesting the gpio during the >> machine_init call. So the gpio request is not called in the driver for >> that gpio. In dt case, the 6th patch adds dt support and that patch >> includes a gpio request call. Hence, this looks okay to me. Please >> suggest if you still feel that there are changes required. > > That's not really particularly sensible given that the changes remove > the option to use anything except GPIOs, the GPIO request should be done > unconditionally in the driver now. Yes, that is right. I will add the gpio request in the driver and resubmit the patch. Thanks.
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/s3c64xx-spi.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/s3c64xx-spi.h index c818a7c..ceba18d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/s3c64xx-spi.h +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/s3c64xx-spi.h @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ struct platform_device; * @fb_delay: Slave specific feedback delay. * Refer to FB_CLK_SEL register definition in SPI chapter. * @line: Custom 'identity' of the CS line. - * @set_level: CS line control. * * This is per SPI-Slave Chipselect information. * Allocate and initialize one in machine init code and make the @@ -27,7 +26,6 @@ struct platform_device; struct s3c64xx_spi_csinfo { u8 fb_delay; unsigned line; - void (*set_level)(unsigned line_id, int lvl); }; /** diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c index 0a9e43e..068600d 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ #include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> #include <linux/spi/spi.h> +#include <linux/gpio.h> #include <mach/dma.h> #include <plat/s3c64xx-spi.h> @@ -411,14 +412,14 @@ static inline void enable_cs(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd, if (sdd->tgl_spi != spi) { /* if last mssg on diff device */ /* Deselect the last toggled device */ cs = sdd->tgl_spi->controller_data; - cs->set_level(cs->line, - spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 0 : 1); + gpio_set_value(cs->line, + spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 0 : 1); } sdd->tgl_spi = NULL; } cs = spi->controller_data; - cs->set_level(cs->line, spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 1 : 0); + gpio_set_value(cs->line, spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 1 : 0); } static int wait_for_xfer(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd, @@ -504,7 +505,7 @@ static inline void disable_cs(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd, if (sdd->tgl_spi == spi) sdd->tgl_spi = NULL; - cs->set_level(cs->line, spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 0 : 1); + gpio_set_value(cs->line, spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH ? 0 : 1); } static void s3c64xx_spi_config(struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd) @@ -833,7 +834,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi) unsigned long flags; int err = 0; - if (cs == NULL || cs->set_level == NULL) { + if (cs == NULL) { dev_err(&spi->dev, "No CS for SPI(%d)\n", spi->chip_select); return -ENODEV; }