lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: mcp23s08: Fixup mcp23x17 regmap_config
From
Date
Hey Andy, Linus,
Thanks for looking at this.

On 28/08/2020 11:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:35 PM Thomas Preston
> <thomas.preston@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> - Fix a typo where mcp23x17 configs are referred to as mcp23x16.
>
> I'm not sure it's correct. MPC23016 is an existing I²C IO expander.
>

The MCP23016 device is not mentioned anywhere else in this driver. The
only place this string is used is in `struct regmap_config
mcp23x17_regmap` (another device). It seems to me that this is a typo
but I might be wrong.

~/w/linux$ git grep -h compatible drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mcp23s08*
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23008",
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23017",
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23018",
.compatible = "mcp,mcp23008",
.compatible = "mcp,mcp23017",
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23s08",
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23s17",
.compatible = "microchip,mcp23s18",
.compatible = "mcp,mcp23s08",
.compatible = "mcp,mcp23s17",

Also I don't have an MC23016, so I can't test configuration for it.

>> - Fix precious range to include INTCAP{A,B}, which clear on read.
>> - Fix precious range to include GPIOB, which clears on read.
>> - Fix volatile range to include GPIOB, to fix debugfs registers
>> reporting different values than `gpioget gpiochip2 {0..15}`.
>
> I'm wondering if you read all the datasheets before doing these changes.
> MPC2308
> MPC23016
> MPC23017
> ...
>

I did not! I was only changing configuration for MCP23017 devices.
What have I missed?

For reference, I think you are referring to [0], [1], [2]. I'm familiar
with the last one.

>> -static const struct regmap_range mcp23x16_volatile_range = {
>> +static const struct regmap_range mcp23x17_volatile_range = {
>> .range_min = MCP_INTF << 1,
>> - .range_max = MCP_GPIO << 1,
>> + .range_max = (MCP_GPIO << 1) + 1,
>
> This looks weird. Usually we do a mask or a bit based mask, like (1 << x) - 1.
>

I don't think these are masks, they're addresses.

I believe the author has doubled the register indexing using a 1 bit
shift, because the MCP23017 device is configured with sequential
addresses (IOCON.BANK = 0). On page 12 of the datasheet [2] this looks like:

0x00 IODIRA, MCP_IODIR << 1
0x01 IODIRB
0x02 IPOLA, MCP_IPOL << 1
0x03 IPOLB
...
0x12 GPIOA, MCP_GPIO << 1
0x13 GPIOB

This means you can read 16 bits from MCP_GPIO << 1 and get the register
values for both banks, or even use this for .range_min.

However, this trick doesn't work for .range_max:

.range_max = MCP_GPIO << 1; /* 0x12 */

But I think it needs to be 0x13 to include GPIOB. Now that I'm looking
into it, how does `mcp23x17_regmap.val_bits = 16` affect this? Perhaps
`MCP_GPIO << 1` is fine after all.

I will whip up a v2 and test this. I'll split the changes across patches
and fix the typo last patch - in case you don't agree with me.

Many thanks,
Thomas

[0] MCP23008 https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/21919e.pdf
[1] MCP23016 http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/20090c.pdf
[2] MCP23017 https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/20001952C.pdf

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-28 21:21    [W:0.061 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site