[PATCH 1/2] GPIO: Add support for dual channel in gpio-xilinx.c

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu> wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 09:46 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> (...)
>>> +/* Read/Write access to the GPIO registers */
>>> +#define xgpio_readreg(offset)          __raw_readl(offset)
>>> +#define xgpio_writereg(offset, val)    __raw_writel(val, offset)
>>
>> So you're swithing in_be32/out_be32 to the CPU-dependent
>> __raw_readl/__raw_writel functions? Why?
>
> The reason is that this driver can be used on ARM where in_be32/out_be32
> is not implemented.

OK I buy this (and the following explanation).

I think readl/writel is always in LE (PCI) endianness anyway, which
is likely not what you want. (I suspect the next point was about
that.)

>> Have you documented these new bindings? It doesn't seem so.
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/*...
>>
>> If it's undocumented so far, this is a good oppotunity to add it.
>
> Isn't it enough what it is in 2/2?

I didn't see 2/2, I guess I wasn't on CC...

Anyway I guess it's this:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136982686732560&w=2

It's OK, but fix the boolean member so as to just needing to
be present:

xlnx,is-dual;

Rather than

xlnx,is-dual = <1>;

> Or do you want to describe current binding in the first patch
> and then extend it in this patch when dual channel is added?

Nah. 2/2 is fine.

>> This is basically a jam table (hardware set-up) in the device tree.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. Xilinx GPIO is soft IP which can be configured
> to different configurations before bitstream is generated.
> At the end you will get different setting/addresses setup for every pin
> which is described by these xlnx,X descriptions.
>
>> I don't exactly like this. Is this necessary?
>
> If you mean names or values in there that all of them are autogenerated
> from design tools and they are reflect IP hardware description and all
> configuration options which you can have there.
> It means that all these values give you exact hardware description.
>
> Do I answer your question?

Yes, this is OK, I buy that explanation. I thought it was
something else.

I think the overall problem is that I do not understand what a
"channel" is in this context, and thus it is hard to understand the
patch as a whole. 2/2 could add some more verbose explanation
about the HW IP so I get comfortable and can understand the
whole hardware block...

Yours,
Linus Walleij