lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: Add Oxford Semiconductor OXNAS pinctrl and gpio driver
From
Date
On 04/13/2016 03:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
>
>> Add pinctrl and gpio control support to Oxford Semiconductor OXNAS SoC Family.
>> This version supports the ARM926EJ-S based OX810SE SoC with 34 IO pins.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>
> Starting to look very nice :)
>
>> +static inline struct oxnas_gpio_bank *irqd_to_bank(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + return gpiochip_get_data(irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d));
>> +}
>
> Do you really need to wrap this call? Seems like pointless layer of
> abstraction to me.

Sure, I'll remove it.

>> + if (of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(np, "gpio-ranges",
>> + 3, 0, &pinspec)) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "gpio-ranges property not found\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + id = pinspec.args[1] / PINS_PER_BANK;
>> + ngpios = pinspec.args[2];
>> +
>> + if (id >= ARRAY_SIZE(oxnas_gpio_banks)) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid gpio-ranges base arg\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (ngpios > PINS_PER_BANK) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid gpio-ranges count arg\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + bank = &oxnas_gpio_banks[id];
>
> This feels a bit hackish but I guess that is how we have to do things
> then :/

It seems I'll need to stick with this for the moment :/

>> +static int __init oxnas_gpio_register(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&oxnas_gpio_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(oxnas_gpio_register);
>> +
>> +static int __init oxnas_pinctrl_register(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&oxnas_pinctrl_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(oxnas_pinctrl_register);
>
> Why do these have to be arch_initcall()?
>
> I'm not very happy with anything below subsys_initcall()
> and others prefer that you have only device_initcall().
>
> I need some rationale. Sorry if I already asked...

Actually, arch_initcall seems the best level to permit further device to get interrupts from these gpio controllers, AFAIK quite all the upstream pinctrl driver uses arch_ or subsys_.

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>

Thanks,
Neil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-18 10:41    [W:0.059 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site