Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0 | From | David Lechner <> | Date | Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:39:51 -0600 |
| |
On 02/20/2018 06:56 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote: >> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when >> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple >> pins per register feature was added. >> >> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules") >> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> >> --- >> >> v2 changes: >> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine- >> readable line. >> >> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but >> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that >> macros can be introduced in another patch. >> >> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, >> || pin < frange->offset) >> continue; > >> mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE; >> - data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask; >> - data |= frange->gpiofunc; >> - pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes); >> + >> + if (pcs->bits_per_mux) { >> + int byte_num, offset, pin_shift; >> + >> + byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE; >> + offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes; >> + pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) * >> + pcs->bits_per_pin; >> + >> + data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset); >> + data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift); >> + data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift; >> + pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset); >> + } else { > >> + data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes); >> + data &= ~pcs->fmask; >> + data |= frange->gpiofunc; >> + pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes); > > Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate > pin_shift and offset in condition, like > > if (...) { > pin_shift = ... > offset = ... > } else { > pin_shift = 0; > offset = pin * mux_bytes; > } > > data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset); > data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift); > data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift; > pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset); > > It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces > that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second > one introduces an if branch override. > >> + } >> break; >
Yes, there are many ways this could be done. However, I would like to just leave it as it is since it matches the patterns used elsewhere in this file.
| |