On Thursday 05 May 2016 06:38 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 05/05/16 11:32, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Thursday 05 May 2016 03:43 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> On 04/05/16 12:39, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < soc->num_io_pads; ++i) { >>> + if (soc->io_pads_control[i].pad_id == pad_id) >>> + return soc->io_pads_control[i].dpd_bit_pos; >>> + } >>> Do we need a loop here? Can't we just make the table a look-up table now >>> that the ID is just an index? >> We do not support the table for all pads and so for those non supported >> pad index, it will be 0 (default) and 0 is the valid bit position here. > That does make it tricky. > >> If you want table then we will need one more information for making that >> index as valid/invalid. >> We can pack the valid/invalid with bit position to make u32. > Another option would be, to have a single table for all devices and the > make the valid field a valid mask which has a bit for each SoC.
We have 2 register for DPD and hence making the mask bit will need u64. I think we can have like below to avoid loop. struct tegra_io_pads_control { int dpd_supported; int voltage_change_supported; int dpd_config_bit; int voltage_config_bit; }; And the *_supported will be true for those supported pads. Logic will be if (soc->io_pads_control[id].dpd_supported) return soc->io_pads_control[id].dpd_config_bit; else return -ENOTSUPP; There is no loop in this. Infact we will not need additional function here and no need to initialize the non-supported pads also. Same for voltage config bit also. >>> + return !!(status & BIT(dpd_bit % 32)); >>> +} >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tegra_io_pads_power_is_enabled); >>> + >>> +int tegra_io_pads_configure_voltage(int io_pad_id, int io_volt_uv) >>> s/io_pad_id/id/ >>> >>> I think I prefer tegra_io_pads_set/get_voltage_conf(). What is the point >>> in passing uV here if in device-tree you are using the enum for the >>> voltage level? I know that I had suggested this, but given we are not >>> going to use voltage in the DT then, not sure it has any value here. >> This is generic interface and hence. So in future if we have more >> option, we will not need change in interface. > Yes but apart from the SOR driver should only be used by the pinctrl > driver (I hope). > >> Otherwise, make enums for 1.8/3.3 and pass as enum here. So in future if >> we have any other voltage then again add enums. >> I wanted to avoid this. > You already have added the enum for the pinctrl driver and you would > have to change that enum in the future anyway. So why not use it here? > >>> +#define TEGRA_IO_PADS_CONTROL(_pad, _dpd, _pwr) \ >>> +{ \ >>> + .pad_id = (TEGRA_IO_PAD_##_pad), \ >>> Not sure this needs to be part of the structure as it is just an index. >> it is there for matching. >> >>>> +#define TEGRA_IO_PAD_USB2 41 >>>> +#define TEGRA_IO_PAD_USB3 42 >>>> +#define TEGRA_IO_PAD_USB_BIAS 43 >>> Enum? >>> >> Yaah, that will also be possible. Then then argument is >> >> enum tegra_io_pad_id id >> >> instead of unsigned int. >> >> May be not much benifit here. > I think that this is exactly what enums are for, then you don't have to > explicitly define each number. > We have defines in the dt binding header. OK, let me expose the enums from pmc header and use this. BTW, are you fine to keep TEGRA_IO_PAD_* as defines instead of enums. This is what POWERGATE are there.