Re: [PATCH RESEND RFC 2/4] drivers: pinctrl: qcom: add wakeup gpio map for sdm845

[Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>]

On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 14:04 -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01 2018 at 02:42 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 03:00:19 +0100,
>>Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Add GPIO to PDC pin map for the SDM845 SoC.
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
>>>---
>>> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>>>
>>>diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>index 2ab7a8885757..e93660922dc2 100644
>>>--- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sdm845.c
>>>@@ -1277,6 +1277,80 @@ static const struct msm_pingroup sdm845_groups[] = {
>>> 	UFS_RESET(ufs_reset, 0x99f000),
>>> };
>>>
>>>+static struct msm_pinctrl_pdc_map sdm845_wakeup_gpios[] = {
>>
>>[huge array]
>>
>>>+};
>>
>>Why isn't that array part of the DT? I'd expect other SoCs to
>>eventually use a similar mechanism, no?
>>
>I agree and it should be.
>
>One place I am thinking is to add it to the DT definition of PDC
>controller as a data argument -
>
>	tlmm: pinctrl@000000{
>	[...]
>		interrupts-extended = <&pdc 30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 1>,
>                     <&pdc 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 3>,
>		      <&pdc 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 5>,
>						   ^
>						   |--- Provide the GPIO
>						   for the PDC pin here.
>	};
>
>	pdc: interrupt-controller@b220000 {
>		compatible = "qcom,sdm845-pdc";
>		reg = <0xb220000 0x30000>;
>		qcom,pdc-ranges = <0 512 94>, <94 641 15>, <115 662 7>;
>		#interrupt-cells = <3>; <-------- Increase this from 2 ?
>		interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>		interrupt-controller;
>	};
>
>Would that be acceptable?
>
Any ideas on how to do this better?
>Thanks,
>Lina