Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:04:05 -0600 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND RFC 2/4] drivers: pinctrl: qcom: add wakeup gpio map for sdm845 |
| |
On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 02:42 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote: >On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 03:00:19 +0100, >Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> Add GPIO to PDC pin map for the SDM845 SoC. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c >> index 2ab7a8885757..e93660922dc2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c >> @@ -1277,6 +1277,80 @@ static const struct msm_pingroup sdm845_groups[] = { >> UFS_RESET(ufs_reset, 0x99f000), >> }; >> >> +static struct msm_pinctrl_pdc_map sdm845_wakeup_gpios[] = { > >[huge array] > >> +}; > >Why isn't that array part of the DT? I'd expect other SoCs to >eventually use a similar mechanism, no? > I agree and it should be.
One place I am thinking is to add it to the DT definition of PDC controller as a data argument -
tlmm: pinctrl@000000{ [...] interrupts-extended = <&pdc 30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 1>, <&pdc 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 3>, <&pdc 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 5>, ^ |--- Provide the GPIO for the PDC pin here. };
pdc: interrupt-controller@b220000 { compatible = "qcom,sdm845-pdc"; reg = <0xb220000 0x30000>; qcom,pdc-ranges = <0 512 94>, <94 641 15>, <115 662 7>; #interrupt-cells = <3>; <-------- Increase this from 2 ? interrupt-parent = <&intc>; interrupt-controller; };
Would that be acceptable?
Thanks, Lina
| |