Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] gpio: grgpio: Add device driver for GRGPIO cores

From: Andreas Larson
Date: Mon Apr 15 2013 - 08:38:57 EST

On 2013-04-10 20:50, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Andreas Larsson <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This driver supports GRGPIO gpio cores available in the GRLIB VHDL IP
core library from Aeroflex Gaisler.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Larsson <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-grgpio.txt | 24 +++
drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 9 ++
drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/gpio/gpio-grgpio.c | 164 ++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 198 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-grgpio.txt
create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpio-grgpio.c

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-grgpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-grgpio.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1050dc8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-grgpio.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Aeroflex Gaisler GRGPIO General Purpose I/O cores.
+
+The GRGPIO GPIO core is available in the GRLIB VHDL IP core library.
+
+Note: In the ordinary environment for the GRGPIO core, a Leon SPARC system,
+these properties are built from information in the AMBA plug&play.
+
+Required properties:
+
+- name : Should be "GAISLER_GPIO" or "01_01a"

What is this? Don't we usually use a .compatible string for this?
Name? Que? Is that something legacy?

Regarding using name, this is standard for SPARC. The names in the
device tree originates from the PROM.

The name field is the actually the first field checked for a match in
of_match_node, followed by type then compatible. See
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/of/base.c#L572

Examples can be found among many others in:
- drivers/watchdog/riowd.c
- drivers/watchdog/cpwd.c
- drivers/mtd/maps/sun_uflash.c
- drivers/input/misc/sparcspkr.c
- drivers/input/serio/i8042-sparcio.h
- drivers/hwmon/ultra45_env.c

As for the "01_01a", the LEON SPARC systems uses a plug&play to identify
different IP cores in the system. When the PROM is unaware of the name
of a certain core, the name field presented from the prom will be on
this form. This is standard handling for LEON SPARC drivers.

Examples of this can be found in:
- drivers/gpio/gpio-grgpio.c
- drivers/usb/host/uhci-grlib.c
- drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
- drivers/video/grvga.c
- drivers/net/can/grcan.c
- drivers/net/ethernet/aeroflex/greth.c
- drivers/tty/serial/apbuart.c


I would prefer:

- Add you vendor prefix to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt
- Use a compatible string like this "gaisler,gpio"

+- reg : Address and length of the register set for the device
+
+- interrupts : Interrupt numbers for this device
+
+Optional properties:
+
+- base : The base gpio number for the core. A dynamic base is used if not
+ present

This has to go. We don't hardcode numbers from the global GPIO
space into the device tree, beacause as you soon realize this is
Linux-specific and the device tree shall be OS agnostic.

The discussion has come up a number of times, review the mailing
lists for suggestions on how to get around this.

(...)
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-grgpio.c

+struct grgpio_regs {
+ u32 data; /* 0x00 */
+ u32 output; /* 0x04 */
+ u32 dir; /* 0x08 */
+ u32 imask; /* 0x0c */
+ u32 ipol; /* 0x10 */
+ u32 iedge; /* 0x14 */
+ u32 bypass; /* 0x18 */
+ u32 __reserved; /* 0x1c */
+ u32 imap[8]; /* 0x20-0x3c */
+};

Um... Why are you doing this?

+struct grgpio_priv {
+ struct bgpio_chip bgc;
+ struct grgpio_regs __iomem *regs;

And that's tagged as __iomem * as well, that is very unorthodox.
The usual practice is to have a base pointer void __iomem *base
and offset from that.

+ struct device *dev;
+};
+
+static inline struct grgpio_priv *grgpio_gc_to_priv(struct gpio_chip *gc)
+{
+ struct bgpio_chip *bgc = to_bgpio_chip(gc);
+
+ return container_of(bgc, struct grgpio_priv, bgc);
+}
+
+static int grgpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset)
+{
+ return -ENXIO;
+}

The gpiolib core already returns -ENXIO if this function is
not assigned so just delete this function and leave that
function pointer as NULL.

Sure, the second patch should add it from scratch.

+static int grgpio_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
+{
+ struct device_node *np = ofdev->dev.of_node;
+ struct grgpio_regs __iomem *regs;

Prefer void __iomem *base;

+ struct gpio_chip *gc;
+ struct bgpio_chip *bgc;
+ struct grgpio_priv *priv;
+ struct resource *res;
+ int err;
+ u32 prop;
+
+ priv = devm_kzalloc(&ofdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!priv)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ res = platform_get_resource(ofdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&ofdev->dev, res);
+ if (IS_ERR(regs))
+ return PTR_ERR(regs);
+
+ bgc = &priv->bgc;
+ err = bgpio_init(bgc, &ofdev->dev, 4, &regs->data, &regs->output, NULL,
+ &regs->dir, NULL, BGPIOF_BIG_ENDIAN_BYTE_ORDER);

So I would prefer if you did:

#define GRGPIO_DATA 0x00
#define GRGPIO_OUTPUT 0x04
#define GRGPIO_DIR 0x08
(...)

Sure, I'll change it, either way works for me, although I don't see a problem with the original approach.


err = bgpio_init(bgc, &ofdev->dev, 4, base + GRGPIO_DATA, base +
GRGPIO_OUTPUT, NULL,
base + GRGPIO_DIR, NULL, BGPIOF_BIG_ENDIAN_BYTE_ORDER);

+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "bgpio_init() failed\n");
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ priv->regs = regs;
+ priv->dev = &ofdev->dev;
+
+ gc = &bgc->gc;
+ gc->of_node = np;
+ gc->owner = THIS_MODULE;
+ gc->to_irq = grgpio_to_irq;
+ gc->label = np->full_name;
+
+ err = of_property_read_u32(np, "base", &prop);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_dbg(&ofdev->dev, "No base property: use dynamic base\n");
+ gc->base = -1;
+ } else {
+ gc->base = prop;
+ }

Over my dead body ;-)

Removed

(...)
+static struct of_device_id grgpio_match[] = {
+ {.name = "GAISLER_GPIO"},
+ {.name = "01_01a"},
+ {},
+};

This is very weird. Especially "01_01a" needs a real good explanation
if it is to be kept.

Alas, I don't really know what the .name field in the of_device_id is for...

Treated above.


Thanks for the feedback!

Cheers,
Andreas Larsson


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/