| Message ID | 1314798161-19523-26-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> writes: > From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> > > GPIO IP revisions such as those used in OMAP4 have a set_dataout > while the previous revisions used a single dataout register. > Depending on what is available restore the dataout settings > to the right register. OK, minor nit below... > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> > Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > index a629498..4680b4c 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c > @@ -1334,7 +1334,12 @@ static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank) > bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect); > __raw_writel(bank->context.fallingdetect, > bank->base + bank->regs->fallingdetect); > - __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); > + if (bank->regs->set_dataout && bank->regs->clr_dataout) Why the check for ->clr_dataout here? > + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, > + bank->base + bank->regs->set_dataout); > + else > + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, > + bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); > __raw_writel(bank->context.oe, bank->base + bank->regs->direction); > > if (bank->dbck_enable_mask) { Kevin
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote: > Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> writes: > >> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> >> >> GPIO IP revisions such as those used in OMAP4 have a set_dataout >> while the previous revisions used a single dataout register. >> Depending on what is available restore the dataout settings >> to the right register. > > OK, minor nit below... > >> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> >> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 7 ++++++- >> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >> index a629498..4680b4c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c >> @@ -1334,7 +1334,12 @@ static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank) >> bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect); >> __raw_writel(bank->context.fallingdetect, >> bank->base + bank->regs->fallingdetect); >> - __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); >> + if (bank->regs->set_dataout && bank->regs->clr_dataout) > > Why the check for ->clr_dataout here? Well, I guess it was just an additional check. It can possibly be removed. -- Tarun > >> + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, >> + bank->base + bank->regs->set_dataout); >> + else >> + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, >> + bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); >> __raw_writel(bank->context.oe, bank->base + bank->regs->direction); >> >> if (bank->dbck_enable_mask) { > > Kevin >
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c index a629498..4680b4c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c @@ -1334,7 +1334,12 @@ static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank) bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect); __raw_writel(bank->context.fallingdetect, bank->base + bank->regs->fallingdetect); - __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); + if (bank->regs->set_dataout && bank->regs->clr_dataout) + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, + bank->base + bank->regs->set_dataout); + else + __raw_writel(bank->context.dataout, + bank->base + bank->regs->dataout); __raw_writel(bank->context.oe, bank->base + bank->regs->direction); if (bank->dbck_enable_mask) {