lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: Add msm8x74 configuration
From
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/13 18:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

As the driver is merged I expect fixes to come in as additional patches.

>> Add initial definition of parameters for pinctrl-msm for the msm8x74
>> platform.
>
> Hmm. We've tried to remove 'x' from our code because it isn't really
> accurate and leads to more confusion.

So does this pin controller have a real name in the data sheet?

I usually prefer to name the drivers after the name of the IP
block rather than the SoC if possible.

Or should it just be named pinctrl-msm.c?

>> +#define PINGROUP(id, f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f7) \
>> + { \
>> + .name = "gpio" #id, \
>> + .pins = gpio##id##_pins, \
>> + .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio##id##_pins), \
>> + .funcs = { \
>> + MSM_MUX_NA, /* gpio mode */ \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f1, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f2, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f3, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f4, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f5, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f6, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f7 \
>> + }, \
>> + .ctl_reg = 0x1000 + 0x10 * id , \
>
> Weird trailing space here.

Please send patches.

> Also, do we ever plan to have anything more than the gpio pins and the
> sdc pins? It seems like we spend a lot of space describing exactly the
> same thing in these structs for each of the 146 gpio pins when we could
> just know that range 0 to 146 is gpio pins and have different code for
> that part vs the 6 or something sd pins.

Some platforms use the .gpio_request_enable()/.gpio_disable_free()
instead of one group per pin for this very reason.

>> +static struct of_device_id msm8x74_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
>
> const?

Please send patches.

>> +static int __init msm8x74_pinctrl_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(msm8x74_pinctrl_init);
>> +
>> +static void __exit msm8x74_pinctrl_exit(void)
>> +{
>> + platform_driver_unregister(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver);
>> +}
>> +module_exit(msm8x74_pinctrl_exit);
>
> Why not module_platform_driver()? I thought pinctrl supported deferred
> probing?

It does. Tested patches accepted.

Yours,
Linus Walleij


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-09 10:01    [W:0.160 / U:1.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site