Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eint: add gpio vritual number select | From | Chuanjia Liu <> | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:09:29 +0800 |
| |
On Sun, 2018-12-16 at 23:59 -0800, Sean Wang wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:15 PM Chuanjia Liu <Chuanjia.Liu@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > -ENOTSUPP shouldn't happen in a real pin as SMT is supposed to be > supported by every real pin. > > If it is not true or there are more special on certain pins, and then > we consider to add a flag to struct mtk_pin_desc to group these pins > with their characteristics and to split and reuse the common code flow > with the extra flag. > > So for now, I thought it's enough to handle your case with adding a > few well self-explained comments for the exclusion condition. These > words help us remember we should add adding an extra flag to pin > description as one of TODO if more needs like you come out. > Thanks for your advice,I will update new patch > > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > -- > > > > 1.7.9.5 > > > >
| |