[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gpio patches in mmotm
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> arch/arm/mach-ns9xxx. It's not (yet) fully supported in vanilla, but it
> includes support for different SOCs that have a different handling of
> their GPIOs. E.g. the ns9360 has one gpio configuration register per 8
> gpios, the ns9215 has one per 4 gpios. Or another thing: ns9215 has
> 108 gpios, ns9210 has only 54 where the first 50 gpios are identical to
> the first 50 of ns9215, and the last 4 gpios are identical to gpios
> 105-108 on ns9215. So gpio_is_valid for ns9xxx has to look like:
> int gpio_is_valid(int gpio)
> {
> ...
> if (processor_is_ns9210())
> return gpio >= 0 && gpio < 108 && !(gpio >= 50 && gpio < 105);
> ...
> }
> (In my eyes that hole is ugly, but with it can calculate the address of
> the configuration register without case splitting and can handle ns9215
> and ns9210 identically---apart from the is-valid check.)

Ok, I thought it would be something like that. I think, these are two
different things: GPIO valid and GPIO currently physically existing.
gpio_is_valid() is a test whether the number being tested at all stands a
chance to be a GPIO number on this architecture. As you see in
include/asm-generic/gpio.h it only compares against ARCH_NR_GPIOS, which
is just the theoretically highest GPIO number. It says nothing about
whether or not all valid GPIOs are actually present on the system. Think
about GPIO expanders, there might or might not be one currently available
on the system. Still gpio_is_valid() will return the same result for any
given number. PXA CPUs have the same "feature" as ns9xxx - different
models have differeng GPIOs, and platform add their own GPIO controllers,
which are often placed at a fixed start number, which means, on some CPUs
there will be holes too. And gpio_is_valid is not (and should not be)
checking for those - this is already the task for request_gpio().

> So you reason that the alternative approach allows only a slight
> simplification and so is not worth considering? But obviously
> yes, I have a different opinion. :-)

No, my reason is that I didn't want to put "intimate knowledge" of GPIO
interna, like "-1 is not a valid GPIO" in the driver but use an
abstraction instead. My original proposal was to introduce just one
NO_GPIO macro to test against, however, David nicely managed to persuade
me, that the gpio_is_valid approach is better. Unfortunately, I cannot
argument as nicely as he did, maybe looking through his emails in LKML
archives will help you:-)

Guennadi Liakhovetski
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-08 12:47    [W:0.045 / U:18.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site