* Jun Nie <[email protected]> [150706 18:59]:
> 2015-07-06 23:42 GMT+08:00 Tony Lindgren <[email protected]>:
> > * Jun Nie <[email protected]> [150706 06:59]:
> >> Support GPIO for one register control multiple pins case
> >> with calculating register offset first, then bit offset.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> >> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> >> index 13b45f2..4f23ef0 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> >> @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev
> >> *pctldev,
> >> struct pcs_device *pcs = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> >> struct pcs_gpiofunc_range *frange = NULL;
> >> struct list_head *pos, *tmp;
> >> - int mux_bytes = 0;
> >> + int offset, mux_bytes = 0;
> >> unsigned data;
> >>
> >> /* If function mask is null, return directly. */
> >> @@ -507,9 +507,23 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev
> >> *pctldev,
> >> || pin < frange->offset)
> >> continue;
> >> mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> >> - data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
> >> - data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> >> - pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> >> + if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
> >> + int pin_pos, byte_num, num_pins_in_register;
> >> +
> >> + num_pins_in_register = pcs->width /
> >> pcs->bits_per_pin;
> >> + byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> >> + offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
> >> + pin_pos = pin % num_pins_in_register;
> >> + pin_pos *= pcs->bits_per_pin;
> >> + data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset) &
> >> + ~(pcs->fmask << pin_pos);
> >> + data |= (frange->gpiofunc & pcs->fmask) << pin_pos;
> >
> > I don't quite follow you here.. The pcs->fmask is for the whole register,
> > so I think the fmask should be checked the same way in this case also:
> >
> > data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset) & ~pcs->fmask;
> > ...
> >
> > I don't think we can safely assume the fmask would behave differently
> > in this case.
>
> My understanding to bits_per_mux flags here is that one 32bits
> register shall control 16 pins if every pin takes 2 bits for function
> config, where we shall have dts data:
> "pinctrl-single,function-mask=<0x3>".
Hmm function-mask needs to be for register-width to avoid confusion
and to avoid trying to write to register reserved bits. It seems we
need a new property here in addition to function-mask, and also need to
correct the function-mask usage.
The confusion seems to be introduced in 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl:
pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different
modules").
> In this case, pcs->fmask is 0x3 for all pins for we have only one copy
> of pcs->fmask in driver. If we want to configure pin to gpio that
> controlled by bit[3:2], we shall have below value set with shifting
> mask to clear bit[3:2] first, then set desired value to configure it
> as gpio.
> data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset) &
> ~(pcs->fmask << pin_pos);
> data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset) & ~(0x3 << 2);
Yeah OK we need some new property to deal with this. And need to
fix up 4e7e8017a80e usage and ideally get rid of of all the if
(pcs->bits_per_mux) else confusion.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
