lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 5/5] gpio/gpio-stmpe: ADD support for stmpe variant 801
On 11/18/2011 5:29 PM, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:02, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@st.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-stmpe.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-stmpe.c
>> index 4c980b5..000b019 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-stmpe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-stmpe.c
>> @@ -65,7 +65,15 @@ static void stmpe_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int val)
>> + if (!val && (stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPSR_LSB] ==
>> + stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPCR_LSB]))
>> + stmpe_set_bits(stmpe, reg, mask, ~mask);
>> + else
>> + stmpe_set_bits(stmpe, reg, mask, mask);
>> }
>
> This code,
>
> (1) for 801, when clearing one GPIO, sets all the others.

I assumed stmpe_set_bits will only affect bits which are 1
in mask and i was wrong. :(

> (2) for other devices, adds an an unnecessary read (within stmpe_set_bits()),
> which wasn't there before.
>

Correct.

> Please rework to something like:
>
> if (stmpe->regs[...)
> stmpe_set_bits(stmpe, reg, mask, val ? mask : 0);
> else
> stmpe_reg_write(stmpe, reg, mask);
>

Sure.

>>
>> static int stmpe_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>> @@ -125,10 +133,19 @@ static struct gpio_chip template_chip = {
>> static int stmpe_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>> {
>> struct stmpe_gpio *stmpe_gpio = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> + struct stmpe *stmpe = stmpe_gpio->stmpe;
>> int offset = d->irq - stmpe_gpio->irq_base;
>> int regoffset = offset / 8;
>> int mask = 1 << (offset % 8);
>>
>> + /* STMPE801 doesn't have RE and FE registers */
>> + if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE801) {
>> + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW || type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)
>> + return 0;
>
> This looks wrong. From the datasheet I see that it supports edges only,
> so perhaps you meant to say IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_* above.
>

I meant to say IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL* only, but i was wrong. I didn't read the manual
correctly. :(

> In that case please reorganize this to add the return 0 after the
> existing check which excludes levels (below).
>

Sure

--
viresh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-21 05:23    [W:0.050 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site