Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eint: add gpio vritual number select | From | Chuanjia Liu <> | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:15:04 +0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 11:33 -0800, Sean Wang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:36 AM <chuanjia.liu@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > From: Chuanjia Liu <Chuanjia.Liu@mediatek.com> > > > > This patch add gpio vritual number select,avoid virtual gpio set SMT. > > s/gpio/GPIO/ > s/vritual/virtual/ > > Virtual GPIOs you said here that means these pins only used inside SoC > and not being exported to outside SoC, right? It seems this kind of > pins doesn't need SMT. > Yes,virtual gpio only used inside SOC and these pins doesn't need set SMT > > > > Signed-off-by: Chuanjia Liu <Chuanjia.Liu@mediatek.com> > > --- > > drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/mtk-eint.h | 1 + > > drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8183.c | 1 + > > drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common-v2.c | 9 ++++++--- > > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/mtk-eint.h b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/mtk-eint.h > > index 48468d0..c16beaf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/mtk-eint.h > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/mtk-eint.h > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ struct mtk_eint_hw { > > u8 ports; > > unsigned int ap_num; > > unsigned int db_cnt; > > + unsigned int vir_start; > > }; > > > > struct mtk_eint; > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8183.c b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8183.c > > index 6262fd3..bbeafd3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8183.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8183.c > > @@ -497,6 +497,7 @@ > > .ports = 6, > > .ap_num = 212, > > .db_cnt = 13, > > + .vir_start = 180, > > }; > > > > static const struct mtk_pin_soc mt8183_data = { > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common-v2.c b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common-v2.c > > index 4a9e0d4..ca3bae1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common-v2.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common-v2.c > > @@ -289,9 +289,12 @@ static int mtk_xt_set_gpio_as_eint(void *data, unsigned long eint_n) > > if (err) > > return err; > > > > - err = mtk_hw_set_value(hw, desc, PINCTRL_PIN_REG_SMT, MTK_ENABLE); > > - if (err) > > - return err; > > + if (gpio_n < hw->eint->hw->vir_start) { > > + err = mtk_hw_set_value(hw, desc, PINCTRL_PIN_REG_SMT, > > + MTK_ENABLE); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + } > > The changes will break these SoCs without a properly configured vir_start. > > If SMT seems unnecessary for these kinds of virtual GPIOs pin in the > path, we can do it as > > err = mtk_hw_set_value(hw, desc, PINCTRL_PIN_REG_SMT, > MTK_ENABLE); > /* please add comments for the exclusion condition */ > if (err && err != -ENOTSUPP) > return err; > > If there is getting much special on certain pins between SoCs, and > then we can consider creating a desc->flag to split logic.
Yes,SMT unnecessary for these kinds of virtual GPIOS pin in the path,if do it as err = mtk_hw_set_value(hw, desc, PINCTRL_PIN_REG_SMT, MTK_ENABLE); if (err && err != -ENOTSUPP) return err; I wonder if system will lose -ENOTSUPP information when smt was not successfully set by real gpio? > > > > > return 0; > > } > > -- > > 1.7.9.5
| |