On 13/08/18 20:41, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 14:04 -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 02:42 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 03:00:19 +0100,
>>> Lina Iyer <il...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add GPIO to PDC pin map for the SDM845 SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <il...@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c 
>>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> index 2ab7a8885757..e93660922dc2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>> @@ -1277,6 +1277,80 @@ static const struct msm_pingroup sdm845_groups[] = {
>>>>    UFS_RESET(ufs_reset, 0x99f000),
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +static struct msm_pinctrl_pdc_map sdm845_wakeup_gpios[] = {
>>>
>>> [huge array]
>>>
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Why isn't that array part of the DT? I'd expect other SoCs to
>>> eventually use a similar mechanism, no?
>>>
>> I agree and it should be.
>>
>> One place I am thinking is to add it to the DT definition of PDC
>> controller as a data argument -
>>
>>      tlmm: pinctrl@000000{
>>      [...]
>>              interrupts-extended = <&pdc 30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 1>,
>>                     <&pdc 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 3>,
>>                    <&pdc 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 5>,
>>                                                 ^
>>                                                 |--- Provide the GPIO
>>                                                 for the PDC pin here.
>>      };
>>
>>      pdc: interrupt-controller@b220000 {
>>              compatible = "qcom,sdm845-pdc";
>>              reg = <0xb220000 0x30000>;
>>              qcom,pdc-ranges = <0 512 94>, <94 641 15>, <115 662 7>;
>>              #interrupt-cells = <3>; <-------- Increase this from 2 ?
>>              interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>              interrupt-controller;
>>      };
>>
>> Would that be acceptable?
>>
> Any ideas on how to do this better?

I don't think adding an extra argument to the PDC interrupt specifier is
that great. I'd rather see some associated array in the PDC binding
mapping an interrupt to a pin on which special treatment must be applied.

Thanks,

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

Reply via email to