Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Yes, it's merged to my devel branch now with the ACKs. > Alternatively you could > Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from > this > series via the OMAP tree. This probably will not work as I have a set of other changes to this driver in my tree. > Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that order > else > gpio would break. More discussions are here [1]. Tell me if I should prepare an immutable tag on my branch that you can pull in. I want an explicit handshake with the platform maintainer for this kind of stuff. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 02:11 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and > the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare() > > This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod) > leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default. > > Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak > Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Santosh Shilimkar > Cc: Kevin Hilman > --- $subject patch looks fine but I don't see patch 2/2 assuming this is series of two patches. Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 02:11 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and > the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare() > > This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod) > leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default. > > Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak > Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Santosh Shilimkar > Cc: Kevin Hilman > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Thursday 08 May 2014 05:34 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Rajendra,
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On Thursday 08 May 2014 02:56 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> Hello Rajendra,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:41 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
> the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
>
> This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
> leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
>
> Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
> Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
> Cc: Kevin Hilman
Linus,
Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Alternatively you could
Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from
this
series via the OMAP tree.
Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that
order else
gpio would break. More discussions are here [1].
Let us know what you think. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that is really the case. Your Patch 2/2 removes the call
>>> to clk_prepare on _init_opt_clks() but it also replaces
>>> clk_{enable,disable} with clk_prepare_enable()/clk_disable_unprepare()
>>> on _enable_optional_clocks() and _disable_optional_clocks()
>>> respectively.
>>
>> Right, the difference being, by the time hwmod is done enabling/disabling
>> the opt clocks, without patch 2/2, the prepare count is 1, with patch 2/2
>> prepare count is 0.
>>
>
> Ok, got it now.
>
>>>
>>> And GPIO banks are reset by hwmod on init which as far as I know
>>> happen very early before the GPIO OMAP driver is even probed so by the
>>> time clk_enable() is called on the GPIO driver the clock will already
>>> be prepared by _enable_optional_clocks(). I tested linux-gpio/devel
>>
>> and unprepared by _disable_optional_clocks()?
>>
>
> I see that _disable_optional_clocks() is called as well so the clock
> is left unprepared as you said.
>
>>> branch + only your Patch 2/2 and the GPIOs were working correctly on a
>>> OMAP3 board.
>>
>> Did gpio_debounce() ever get called for any of the gpios?
>>
>
> I don't see gpio_debounce() to be called indeed.
>
> omap_gpio_runtime_resume() is executed and calls
> _gpio_dbck_enable(bank) but clk_enable(bank->dbck) is not called since
> bank->dbck_enable_mask is 0, that was my confusion since I thought
> that clk_enable() was called.
>
> Now I understand the dependency between the two patches.
>
>>>
>>> So I think that there isn't a strict dependency between these two
>>> patches or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> In fact now that I think about it I wonder what's the functional
>>> change of your Patch 2/2 since hwmod is still calling clk_prepare()
>>> before the driver. If the clocks should actually be controlled by the
>>
>> I don't understand why you say 'before the driver'. Hwmod needs to control
>> optional clocks for some devices in order to do a ocp reset. So it does
>> touch these optional clocks, but if you look at the code it subsequently
>> also disables (and unprepares with patch 2/2) these clocks before returning
>> the control to the driver.
>>
>
> Right, it was just me getting confused by the interaction between
> hwmod and the GPIO driver. Thanks a lot for the explanation and sorry
> for the noise.
No issues, thanks for the review and ack.
>
> Feel free to add my:
>
> Acked-by: Javier Martinez Canillas
>
> Best regards,
> Javier
>
>>> drivers like you said then I think that we should remove
>>> _{enable,disable}_optional_clocks() completely and let the drivers do
>>> the clock prepare and enable like is made on your Patch 1/2 for the
>>> GPIO driver.
>>>
>>> What do you think about it?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Javier
>>>
regards,
Rajendra
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02801.html
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32
> reg, u32 mask, bool set)
> static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
> {
> if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
> bank->dbck_enabled = true;
>
> writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct
> gpio_bank *bank)
>*/
> writel_relaxed(0, ban
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
Hello Rajendra,
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Thursday 08 May 2014 02:56 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> Hello Rajendra,
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:41 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
Cc: Kevin Hilman
>>>
>>> Linus,
>>>
>>> Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Alternatively you could
>>> Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from
>>> this
>>> series via the OMAP tree.
>>>
>>> Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that
>>> order else
>>> gpio would break. More discussions are here [1].
>>> Let us know what you think. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if that is really the case. Your Patch 2/2 removes the call
>> to clk_prepare on _init_opt_clks() but it also replaces
>> clk_{enable,disable} with clk_prepare_enable()/clk_disable_unprepare()
>> on _enable_optional_clocks() and _disable_optional_clocks()
>> respectively.
>
> Right, the difference being, by the time hwmod is done enabling/disabling
> the opt clocks, without patch 2/2, the prepare count is 1, with patch 2/2
> prepare count is 0.
>
Ok, got it now.
>>
>> And GPIO banks are reset by hwmod on init which as far as I know
>> happen very early before the GPIO OMAP driver is even probed so by the
>> time clk_enable() is called on the GPIO driver the clock will already
>> be prepared by _enable_optional_clocks(). I tested linux-gpio/devel
>
> and unprepared by _disable_optional_clocks()?
>
I see that _disable_optional_clocks() is called as well so the clock
is left unprepared as you said.
>> branch + only your Patch 2/2 and the GPIOs were working correctly on a
>> OMAP3 board.
>
> Did gpio_debounce() ever get called for any of the gpios?
>
I don't see gpio_debounce() to be called indeed.
omap_gpio_runtime_resume() is executed and calls
_gpio_dbck_enable(bank) but clk_enable(bank->dbck) is not called since
bank->dbck_enable_mask is 0, that was my confusion since I thought
that clk_enable() was called.
Now I understand the dependency between the two patches.
>>
>> So I think that there isn't a strict dependency between these two
>> patches or am I missing something?
>>
>> In fact now that I think about it I wonder what's the functional
>> change of your Patch 2/2 since hwmod is still calling clk_prepare()
>> before the driver. If the clocks should actually be controlled by the
>
> I don't understand why you say 'before the driver'. Hwmod needs to control
> optional clocks for some devices in order to do a ocp reset. So it does
> touch these optional clocks, but if you look at the code it subsequently
> also disables (and unprepares with patch 2/2) these clocks before returning
> the control to the driver.
>
Right, it was just me getting confused by the interaction between
hwmod and the GPIO driver. Thanks a lot for the explanation and sorry
for the noise.
Feel free to add my:
Acked-by: Javier Martinez Canillas
Best regards,
Javier
>> drivers like you said then I think that we should remove
>> _{enable,disable}_optional_clocks() completely and let the drivers do
>> the clock prepare and enable like is made on your Patch 1/2 for the
>> GPIO driver.
>>
>> What do you think about it?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Javier
>>
>>> regards,
>>> Rajendra
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02801.html
>>>
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32
reg, u32 mask, bool set)
static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
{
if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
- clk_enable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
bank->dbck_enabled = true;
writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank
*bank)
*/
writel_relaxed(0, bank->base + bank->regs->debounce_en);
- clk_disable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
bank->dbck_enabled = false;
}
}
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_ban
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Thursday 08 May 2014 02:56 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Rajendra,
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:41 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
>>> the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
>>>
>>> This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
>>> leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
>>> Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman
>>
>> Linus,
>>
>> Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Alternatively you could
>> Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from
>> this
>> series via the OMAP tree.
>>
>> Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that order
>> else
>> gpio would break. More discussions are here [1].
>> Let us know what you think. Thanks.
>>
>
> I wonder if that is really the case. Your Patch 2/2 removes the call
> to clk_prepare on _init_opt_clks() but it also replaces
> clk_{enable,disable} with clk_prepare_enable()/clk_disable_unprepare()
> on _enable_optional_clocks() and _disable_optional_clocks()
> respectively.
Right, the difference being, by the time hwmod is done enabling/disabling
the opt clocks, without patch 2/2, the prepare count is 1, with patch 2/2
prepare count is 0.
>
> And GPIO banks are reset by hwmod on init which as far as I know
> happen very early before the GPIO OMAP driver is even probed so by the
> time clk_enable() is called on the GPIO driver the clock will already
> be prepared by _enable_optional_clocks(). I tested linux-gpio/devel
and unprepared by _disable_optional_clocks()?
> branch + only your Patch 2/2 and the GPIOs were working correctly on a
> OMAP3 board.
Did gpio_debounce() ever get called for any of the gpios?
>
> So I think that there isn't a strict dependency between these two
> patches or am I missing something?
>
> In fact now that I think about it I wonder what's the functional
> change of your Patch 2/2 since hwmod is still calling clk_prepare()
> before the driver. If the clocks should actually be controlled by the
I don't understand why you say 'before the driver'. Hwmod needs to control
optional clocks for some devices in order to do a ocp reset. So it does
touch these optional clocks, but if you look at the code it subsequently
also disables (and unprepares with patch 2/2) these clocks before returning
the control to the driver.
> drivers like you said then I think that we should remove
> _{enable,disable}_optional_clocks() completely and let the drivers do
> the clock prepare and enable like is made on your Patch 1/2 for the
> GPIO driver.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Best regards,
> Javier
>
>> regards,
>> Rajendra
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02801.html
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32
>>> reg, u32 mask, bool set)
>>> static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
>>> {
>>> if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
>>> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
>>> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
>>> bank->dbck_enabled = true;
>>>
>>> writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
>>> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank
>>> *bank)
>>>*/
>>> writel_relaxed(0, bank->base + bank->regs->debounce_en);
>>>
>>> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
>>> bank->dbck_enabled = false;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
>>> unsigned gpio,
>>>
>>> l = GPIO_BIT(bank, gpio);
>>>
>>> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
>>> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
>>> reg = bank->base + bank->regs->debounce;
>>> writel_relaxed(debounce, reg);
>>>
>>> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
>>> unsigned gpio,
>>> bank->dbck_enable_mask = val;
>>>
>>> writel_relaxed(val, reg);
>>> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
>>> /*
>>>* Enable debounce clock per module.
>>>* This call is mandatory because in omap_gpio_request() when
>>> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void _clear_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank
>>> *bank, unsigned gpio)
>>> bank->context.debounce = 0;
>>> writel_relaxed(bank->context.debounce, bank->base +
>>>
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
Hello Rajendra,
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:41 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
>> the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
>>
>> This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
>> leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
>>
>> Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
>> Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
>> Cc: Kevin Hilman
>
> Linus,
>
> Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Alternatively you could
> Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from
> this
> series via the OMAP tree.
>
> Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that order
> else
> gpio would break. More discussions are here [1].
> Let us know what you think. Thanks.
>
I wonder if that is really the case. Your Patch 2/2 removes the call
to clk_prepare on _init_opt_clks() but it also replaces
clk_{enable,disable} with clk_prepare_enable()/clk_disable_unprepare()
on _enable_optional_clocks() and _disable_optional_clocks()
respectively.
And GPIO banks are reset by hwmod on init which as far as I know
happen very early before the GPIO OMAP driver is even probed so by the
time clk_enable() is called on the GPIO driver the clock will already
be prepared by _enable_optional_clocks(). I tested linux-gpio/devel
branch + only your Patch 2/2 and the GPIOs were working correctly on a
OMAP3 board.
So I think that there isn't a strict dependency between these two
patches or am I missing something?
In fact now that I think about it I wonder what's the functional
change of your Patch 2/2 since hwmod is still calling clk_prepare()
before the driver. If the clocks should actually be controlled by the
drivers like you said then I think that we should remove
_{enable,disable}_optional_clocks() completely and let the drivers do
the clock prepare and enable like is made on your Patch 1/2 for the
GPIO driver.
What do you think about it?
Best regards,
Javier
> regards,
> Rajendra
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02801.html
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32
>> reg, u32 mask, bool set)
>> static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
>> {
>> if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
>> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
>> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
>> bank->dbck_enabled = true;
>>
>> writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
>> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank
>> *bank)
>>*/
>> writel_relaxed(0, bank->base + bank->regs->debounce_en);
>>
>> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
>> bank->dbck_enabled = false;
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
>> unsigned gpio,
>>
>> l = GPIO_BIT(bank, gpio);
>>
>> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
>> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
>> reg = bank->base + bank->regs->debounce;
>> writel_relaxed(debounce, reg);
>>
>> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
>> unsigned gpio,
>> bank->dbck_enable_mask = val;
>>
>> writel_relaxed(val, reg);
>> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
>> /*
>>* Enable debounce clock per module.
>>* This call is mandatory because in omap_gpio_request() when
>> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void _clear_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
>> unsigned gpio)
>> bank->context.debounce = 0;
>> writel_relaxed(bank->context.debounce, bank->base +
>>bank->regs->debounce);
>> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
>> bank->dbck_enabled = false;
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 11:41 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
> the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
>
> This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
> leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
>
> Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
> Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
> Cc: Kevin Hilman
Linus,
Do you mind picking this fix up via the GPIO tree? Alternatively you could
Ack this if you are fine and we can take both Patch 1/2 and Patch 2/2 from this
series via the OMAP tree.
Patch 2/2 has a dependency on Patch 1/2 and they need to go in in that order
else
gpio would break. More discussions are here [1].
Let us know what you think. Thanks.
regards,
Rajendra
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02801.html
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32 reg,
> u32 mask, bool set)
> static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
> {
> if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
> bank->dbck_enabled = true;
>
> writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank
> *bank)
>*/
> writel_relaxed(0, bank->base + bank->regs->debounce_en);
>
> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
> bank->dbck_enabled = false;
> }
> }
> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
> unsigned gpio,
>
> l = GPIO_BIT(bank, gpio);
>
> - clk_enable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
> reg = bank->base + bank->regs->debounce;
> writel_relaxed(debounce, reg);
>
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
> unsigned gpio,
> bank->dbck_enable_mask = val;
>
> writel_relaxed(val, reg);
> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
> /*
>* Enable debounce clock per module.
>* This call is mandatory because in omap_gpio_request() when
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void _clear_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
> unsigned gpio)
> bank->context.debounce = 0;
> writel_relaxed(bank->context.debounce, bank->base +
>bank->regs->debounce);
> - clk_disable(bank->dbck);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
> bank->dbck_enabled = false;
> }
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: prepare and unprepare the debounce clock
Replace the clk_enable()s with a clk_prepare_enable() and
the clk_disables()s with a clk_disable_unprepare()
This never showed issues due to the OMAP platform code (hwmod)
leaving these clocks in clk_prepare()ed state by default.
Reported-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak
Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
Cc: Kevin Hilman
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
index 19b886c..78bc5a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_rmw(void __iomem *base, u32 reg,
u32 mask, bool set)
static inline void _gpio_dbck_enable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
{
if (bank->dbck_enable_mask && !bank->dbck_enabled) {
- clk_enable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
bank->dbck_enabled = true;
writel_relaxed(bank->dbck_enable_mask,
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static inline void _gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank
*bank)
*/
writel_relaxed(0, bank->base + bank->regs->debounce_en);
- clk_disable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
bank->dbck_enabled = false;
}
}
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
unsigned gpio,
l = GPIO_BIT(bank, gpio);
- clk_enable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_prepare_enable(bank->dbck);
reg = bank->base + bank->regs->debounce;
writel_relaxed(debounce, reg);
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static void _set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
unsigned gpio,
bank->dbck_enable_mask = val;
writel_relaxed(val, reg);
- clk_disable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
/*
* Enable debounce clock per module.
* This call is mandatory because in omap_gpio_request() when
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void _clear_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank,
unsigned gpio)
bank->context.debounce = 0;
writel_relaxed(bank->context.debounce, bank->base +
bank->regs->debounce);
- clk_disable(bank->dbck);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(bank->dbck);
bank->dbck_enabled = false;
}
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
