Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 04/10] pinctrl: rockchip: Special treatment for RK3288 gpio0 pins' iomux

[David Wu]

Hi Philipp,

在 2019/4/4 下午3:19, Philipp Tomsich 写道:


On 04.04.2019, at 05:51, David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com> wrote:

RK3288 pmu_gpio0 iomux setting have no higher 16 writing corresponding
bits, need to read before write the register.

Signed-off-by: David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com>
---

drivers/pinctrl/rockchip/pinctrl-rk3288.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/rockchip/pinctrl-rk3288.c 
b/drivers/pinctrl/rockchip/pinctrl-rk3288.c
index 1fa601d954..d66ffdf24b 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/rockchip/pinctrl-rk3288.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/rockchip/pinctrl-rk3288.c
@@ -54,7 +54,13 @@ static int rk3288_set_mux(struct rockchip_pin_bank *bank, 
int pin, int mux)
                }
        }

-       data = (mask << (bit + 16));
+       if (bank->bank_num == 0) {
+               regmap_read(regmap, reg, &data);

Could you pull the regmap_read out of the if and make it common for all cases, 
so the differences between the paths are in data-manipulation only?

Yes, the difference between the gpio0 and other pins is the 
data-manipulation, and i think the others don't need the regmap_read,
so it is not a common case.


+               data &= ~(mask << bit);
+       } else {
+               data = (mask << (bit + 16));
+       }
+

Please add a comment, so readers will be able to understand what is happening 
(and why) without referring to the TRM

        data |= (mux & mask) << bit;
        ret = regmap_write(regmap, reg, data);

--
2.19.1








_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot