[PATCH] gpio: exynos4: Add device tree support
Thomas Abraham
thomas.abraham at linaro.org
Wed Oct 12 02:19:35 EST 2011
Hi Rob,
On 11 October 2011 20:41, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> On 10/11/2011 03:16 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> As gpio chips get registered, a device tree node which represents the
>> gpio chip is searched and attached to it. A translate function is also
>> provided to convert the gpio specifier into actual platform settings
>> for pin function selection, pull up/down and driver strength settings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham at linaro.org>
>> ---
>> This patch is based on the latest consolidated Samsung GPIO driver available
>> in the following tree:
>> https://github.com/kgene/linux-samsung.git branch: for-next
>>
>> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt | 30 +++++++++++
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..883faeb
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-samsung.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>> +Samsung Exynos4 GPIO Controller
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: Format of compatible property value should be
>> + "samsung,exynos4-gpio-<controller_name>". Example: For GPA0 controller, the
>> + compatible property value should be "samsung,exynos4-gpio-gpa0".
>
> Isn't gpa0 an instance of the h/w, not a version?
GPA0 is a instance of the gpio controller. There are several such
instances and there could be differences in those instances such as
the number of GPIO lines managed by that gpio controller instance.
>
>> +
>> +- reg: Physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped region.
>> +
>> +- #gpio-cells: Should be 4. The syntax of the gpio specifier used by client nodes
>> + should be the following with values derived from the SoC user manual.
>> + <[phandle of the gpio controller node] <pin number within the gpio controller]
>> + [mux function] [pull up/down] [drive strength]>
>
> It would be better to list out the values here.
Ok. I will do that in the next version of the patch.
>
>> +
>> +- gpio-controller: Specifies that the node is a gpio controller.
>> +
>> +- #address-cells: should be 1.
>> +
>> +- #size-cells: should be 1.
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> + gpa0: gpio-controller at 11400000 {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "samsung,exynos4-gpio-gpa0";
>> + reg = <0x11400000 0x20>;
>> + #gpio-cells = <4>;
>> + gpio-controller;
>> + };
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
>> index b6be77a..037d3bb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> #include <linux/sysdev.h>
>> #include <linux/ioport.h>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#endif
>
> Don't need the ifdef here.
Ok. I will remove it.
>
>>
>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>
>> @@ -2353,6 +2357,52 @@ static struct samsung_gpio_chip exynos4_gpios_3[] = {
>> #endif
>> };
>>
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) && defined(CONFIG_OF)
>> +int exynos4_gpio_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc, struct device_node *np,
>
> static
Ok. I will add it.
>
>> + const void *gpio_spec, u32 *flags)
>> +{
>> + const __be32 *gpio = gpio_spec;
>> + const u32 n = be32_to_cpup(gpio);
>> + unsigned int pin = gc->base + be32_to_cpu(gpio[0]);
>> +
>> + if (gc->of_gpio_n_cells < 4) {
>> + WARN_ON(1);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (n > gc->ngpio)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + s3c_gpio_cfgpin(pin, S3C_GPIO_SFN(be32_to_cpu(gpio[1])));
>> + s3c_gpio_setpull(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[2]));
>> + s5p_gpio_set_drvstr(pin, be32_to_cpu(gpio[3]));
>> + return n;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static __init void exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct gpio_chip *gc)
>> +{
>> + const char exynos4_gpio_compat_base[] = "samsung,exynos4-gpio-";
>> + char *exynos4_gpio_compat;
>> +
>> + exynos4_gpio_compat = kzalloc(strlen(exynos4_gpio_compat_base) +
>> + strlen(gc->label), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!exynos4_gpio_compat)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + strcpy(exynos4_gpio_compat, exynos4_gpio_compat_base);
>> + strcat(exynos4_gpio_compat, gc->label);
>> + gc->of_node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, exynos4_gpio_compat);
>> + gc->of_gpio_n_cells = 4;
>> + gc->of_xlate = exynos4_gpio_xlate;
>> + kfree(exynos4_gpio_compat);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static __init void exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>> +{
>> + return;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) && defined(CONFIG_OF) */
>> +
>> /* TODO: cleanup soc_is_* */
>> static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>> {
>> @@ -2434,6 +2484,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>> chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>> chip->group = group++;
>> }
>> + exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>> }
>> samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_1, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO1);
>>
>> @@ -2446,6 +2497,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>> chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>> chip->group = group++;
>> }
>> + exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>> }
>> samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_2, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO2);
>>
>> @@ -2458,6 +2510,7 @@ static __init int samsung_gpiolib_init(void)
>> chip->config = &exynos4_gpio_cfg;
>> chip->group = group++;
>> }
>> + exynos4_gpiolib_attach_ofnode(&chip->chip);
>> }
>> samsung_gpiolib_add_4bit_chips(exynos4_gpios_3, nr_chips, S5P_VA_GPIO3);
>>
>
> This code is really ugly, but I guess you inherited it. Converting to a
> platform driver and using id table would be much cleaner.
Ok. I wanted to get the initial dt support for gpio controller on
Exynos started because dt support for other controllers depend on
this. I will revisit this as per your suggestion during the 3.2 cycle.
Thanks for reviewing this patch.
Regards,
Thomas
>
> Rob
>
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list