Re: [PATCH] gpio: add Penwell gpio support

From: Du, Alek
Date: Thu May 20 2010 - 23:28:16 EST


On Fri, 21 May 2010 05:28:21 +0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:40:25 +0800
> "Du, Alek" <alek.du@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > >From 963f6e83843b0f94f8a5337def6e897ec5bb99bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Alek Du <alek.du@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:32:46 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] gpio: add Penwell gpio support
> >
> > Intel Penwell chip has two 96 pins GPIO blocks, which are very similiar as
> > Intel Langwell chip GPIO block, except for pin number difference. This
> > patch expends the original Langwell GPIO driver to support Penwell's.
> >
>
> Has the driver been retested on Moorestown?

Yes, retested with Moorestown platform.

>
> > -static int lnw_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> > +static inline void __iomem *gpio_reg(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
> > + enum GPIO_REG reg_type)
> > {
> > struct lnw_gpio *lnw = container_of(chip, struct lnw_gpio, chip);
> > + unsigned nreg = chip->ngpio / 32;
> > u8 reg = offset / 32;
> > - void __iomem *gplr;
> > + void __iomem *ptr;
> > +
> > + ptr = (void __iomem *)(lnw->reg_base + reg_type * nreg * 4 + reg * 4);
> > + return ptr;
> > +}
>
> inlining this function was probably the wrong thing to do. But modern
> gcc's often just ignore the `inline' and do the right thing anyway.
>

Yes, as I looked at the assembly code, the function is too big. I should remove "inline".

>
> > -static struct pci_device_id lnw_gpio_ids[] = {
> > - { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x080f) },
> > +static struct pci_device_id lnw_gpio_ids[] = { /* pin number */
> > + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x080f), .driver_data = 64 },
> > + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x081f), .driver_data = 96 },
> > + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, 0x081a), .driver_data = 96 },
> > { 0, }
>
> I suppose we should be using DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE() here.
>
>
Yes, here is the incremental patch against previous one (I got the mail said
the previous one is in mm tree now):