| Message ID | 1465195811-3041-3-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
Hi Wolfram, On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > index 44632b1a5c978c..8e068d8534de00 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ > PORT_GP_CFG_16(0, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > PORT_GP_CFG_28(1, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > PORT_GP_CFG_15(2, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > - PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > - PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > + PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ Shouldn't this be split in PORT_GP_CFG_12() with SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE, and PORT_GP_CFG_4() without? > + PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ Apart from that: Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > --- > > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > index 44632b1a5c978c..8e068d8534de00 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ > > PORT_GP_CFG_16(0, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > PORT_GP_CFG_28(1, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > PORT_GP_CFG_15(2, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > - PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > - PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > + PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ > > Shouldn't this be split in PORT_GP_CFG_12() with SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE, > and PORT_GP_CFG_4() without? Right. However, PORT_GP_CFG_4 doesn't allow to set an offset for the pin numbers. Options I see: a) keep it as is and rely on the checks in pin_to_pocctrl() b) use PORT_GP_CFG_12 and 4 times PORT_GP_CFG_1 which allow setting the pin number c) introduce (yet another) macro like PORT_GP_CFG_4_OFS So far, I thought a) was good enough. Now I tend to option b) because it is indeed more precise. We still can do c) if demand for such a macro increases. What do you think? Thanks, Wolfram
Hi Wolfram, On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: >> > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> >> > --- >> > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c >> > index 44632b1a5c978c..8e068d8534de00 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c >> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c >> > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ >> > PORT_GP_CFG_16(0, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ >> > PORT_GP_CFG_28(1, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ >> > PORT_GP_CFG_15(2, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ >> > - PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ >> > - PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ >> > + PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ >> >> Shouldn't this be split in PORT_GP_CFG_12() with SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE, >> and PORT_GP_CFG_4() without? > > Right. However, PORT_GP_CFG_4 doesn't allow to set an offset for the pin > numbers. Options I see: > a) keep it as is and rely on the checks in pin_to_pocctrl() > b) use PORT_GP_CFG_12 and 4 times PORT_GP_CFG_1 which allow setting the > pin number > c) introduce (yet another) macro like PORT_GP_CFG_4_OFS > > So far, I thought a) was good enough. Now I tend to option b) because it > is indeed more precise. We still can do c) if demand for such a macro > increases. > > What do you think? Option b is fine for me. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c index 44632b1a5c978c..8e068d8534de00 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ PORT_GP_CFG_16(0, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ PORT_GP_CFG_28(1, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ PORT_GP_CFG_15(2, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ - PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ - PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ + PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ + PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ PORT_GP_CFG_26(5, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ PORT_GP_CFG_32(6, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ PORT_GP_CFG_4(7, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH) @@ -4765,8 +4765,28 @@ static const struct pinmux_drive_reg pinmux_drive_regs[] = { { }, }; +static int r8a7795_pin_to_pocctrl(struct sh_pfc *pfc, unsigned int pin, u32 *pocctrl) +{ + int bit = -EINVAL; + + *pocctrl = 0xe6060380; + + if (pin >= RCAR_GP_PIN(3, 0) && pin <= RCAR_GP_PIN(3, 11)) + bit = pin & 0x1f; + + if (pin >= RCAR_GP_PIN(4, 0) && pin <= RCAR_GP_PIN(4, 17)) + bit = (pin & 0x1f) + 12; + + return bit; +} + +static const struct sh_pfc_soc_operations r8a7795_pinmux_ops = { + .pin_to_pocctrl = r8a7795_pin_to_pocctrl, +}; + const struct sh_pfc_soc_info r8a7795_pinmux_info = { .name = "r8a77950_pfc", + .ops = &r8a7795_pinmux_ops, .unlock_reg = 0xe6060000, /* PMMR */ .function = { PINMUX_FUNCTION_BEGIN, PINMUX_FUNCTION_END },