From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: save HOSTSW_OWN register over suspend/resume Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:59:24 +0300 Message-ID: <20190404135924.GV9224@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20190328123444.GX3622@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20190401074953.GQ3622@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20190401122256.GF9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190402115836.GL9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190403130640.GD9224@smile.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Chiu Cc: Mika Westerberg , Daniel Drake , Heikki Krogerus , Linus Walleij , "open list:PIN CONTROL SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel , Linux Upstreaming Team List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:06:04PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:06 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:06:43PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 7:58 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > wrote: > > This better to make as a separate helper function > > > > static u32 intel_gpio_is_requested(chip, base, size) > > { > > u32 requested = 0; > > unsigned int i; > > > > for () { > > if () > > requested |= BIT(); > > } > > return requested; > > } > > > > (Note u32 as a type) > > > > Thanks. I made a minor modification for the check function. I think to > pass a padgroup > as the argument would be better instead of base, size which I may need > to check if > the size > 32 (of course it shouldn't happen) or not. Group size is never bigger than 32 pins. The helper should be pure GPIO, that's why I still would like to see base there. Otherwise it would be layering violation. > +intel_padgroup_has_gpio_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip, const > struct intel_padgroup *gpp) Namespace is intel_gpio_ here. > +{ > + u32 requested = 0; > + int i; > + > + if (gpp == NULL) > + return 0; > + > + if (gpp->gpio_base < 0) > + return 0; > + > + for (i = 0; i < gpp->size; i++) > + if (gpiochip_is_requested(chip, gpp->gpio_base + i)) > + requested |= BIT(i); > + > + return requested; > +} > > > + if (requested) { > > > + if (communities[i].hostown[gpp] != > > > readl(base + gpp * 4)) { > > > + > > > writel(communities[i].hostown[gpp], base + gpp * 4); > > > > The idea here not to check this at all, but rather apply a mask. > > > > u32 value; > > > > ... > > value = readl(); > > value = (value & ~requested) | (hostown[gpp] & requested); > > writel(value); > > > > I made the following per your suggestion. So basically I don't need to show a > warning for the abnormal HOSTSW_OWN value change? I will submit a formal > patch for review if there's no big problem for these code logic. Please advise > if any. Thanks. You still have all data to produce a warning if it's needed. ((value ^ hostown[gpp]) & requested) will return the changed bits. > + base = community->regs + community->hostown_offset; > + for (gpp = 0; gpp < community->ngpps; gpp++) { > + const struct intel_padgroup *padgrp = > &community->gpps[i]; > + u32 requested = > intel_padgroup_has_gpio_requested(&pctrl->chip, padgrp); > + > + if (requested) { You may not need this check at all. > + u32 value = readl(base + gpp * 4); > + u32 saved = communities[i].hostown[gpp]; > + > + value = (value & ~requested) | (saved > & requested); > + writel(value, base + gpp * 4); It's possible to split this as well to another helper function. static void intel_gpio_update_pad_mode(void __iomem *hostown, u32 mask, u32 value) { ... } > + dev_dbg(dev, "restored hostown %d/%u > %#08x\n", i, gpp, > + readl(base + gpp * 4)); > + } > + } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko