[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: mediatek: Add Pinctrl/GPIO driver for mt8135.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Joe.C <> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 15:38 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> (...)
>> > +static struct mt_desc_function *
>> > +mt_pctrl_desc_find_irq_by_name(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl,
>> > + const char *pin_name)
>> Why is it called *find_irq_by_name if it returns a
>> function? Seems more like find_function_from_pin_name
>> really.
>> And I don't know if that is such a good idea.
> In 8135 & 6589, not every gpio pin support interrupt function. For those
> support interrupt, it will have a EINT function and use a different EINT
> offset number.
> In 8127, EINT support is merged into gpio function, but they still use a
> different EINT offset number.
> This function is used to find EINT function for the pin. Maybe we should
> name this mt_pctrl_desc_find_irq_function_from_name to make it more
> clear.

OK such translation is usually the work of the irqdomain. Is there
some reason why it is not used in this driver then?

>> > + for (j = 0; j < PINMUX_MAX_VAL; j++) {
>> > + if (func->irqnum != 255)
>> So why does it end at 255? Seems pretty arbitrary.
> If a function support interrupt, we put its interrupt number in irqnum,
> otherwise it will be 255. Does it make it more clear if we use macro


> We use a different interrupt number than gpio pin number. I think it
> more nature to use EINT interrupt number as the hw_number, so I think we
> can't use gpiochip_irqchip_add and we still need to provide our
> own .to_irq mapping function.

You should be able to use irqdomain to translate I think.

> While it might still be possible to generate group+function array based
> on datasheet, IMHO the structure will be more complicate and harder to
> prove the correctness.
> So we choose to use descriptor array + macros in device tree because it
> is quite simple to generate the pin descriptors and easier to notice if
> there's error in device tree pin groups description.

There is a parallel discussion on this, or two maybe.

The number of pin control bindings is exploding and I need to
push back.

Please help out defining generic pin control bindings for this
use case and we can move forward.

Linus Walleij

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-21 11:41    [W:0.051 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site