* [PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patchset adds gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button on hisilicon D02 board. The two patches respectively: - switch device node to fwnode - adds gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button This patchset is based on https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git branch "devel" Changes v2 -> v3 - fixed the build error reported by Kbuild test robot Changes v1 -> v2: - rebase to branch "devel" of Linus Walleij's repository - split in two patch as suggested by Andy S - add Mika's ACKs qiujiang (2): gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 2 +- include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patchset adds gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button on hisilicon D02 board. The two patches respectively: - switch device node to fwnode - adds gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button This patchset is based on https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git branch "devel" Changes v2 -> v3 - fixed the build error reported by Kbuild test robot Changes v1 -> v2: - rebase to branch "devel" of Linus Walleij's repository - split in two patch as suggested by Andy S - add Mika's ACKs qiujiang (2): gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 2 +- include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang -1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++---------------- drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 2 +- include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c index 597de1e..0ebbdf1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c @@ -290,14 +290,14 @@ static void dwapb_configure_irqs(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, struct dwapb_port_property *pp) { struct gpio_chip *gc = &port->gc; - struct device_node *node = pp->node; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = pp->fwnode; struct irq_chip_generic *irq_gc = NULL; unsigned int hwirq, ngpio = gc->ngpio; struct irq_chip_type *ct; int err, i; - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); if (!gpio->domain) return; @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, } #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); #endif port->gc.ngpio = pp->ngpio; port->gc.base = pp->gpio_base; @@ -449,17 +449,16 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) static struct dwapb_platform_data * dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) { - struct device_node *node, *port_np; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; struct dwapb_port_property *pp; int nports; int i; - node = dev->of_node; - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); - nports = of_get_child_count(node); + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); if (nports == 0) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); @@ -474,21 +473,21 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) pdata->nports = nports; i = 0; - for_each_child_of_node(node, port_np) { + device_for_each_child_node(dev, fwnode) { pp = &pdata->properties[i++]; - pp->node = port_np; + pp->fwnode = fwnode; - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", &pp->ngpio)) { dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); pp->ngpio = 32; } @@ -497,17 +496,18 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) * the IP. */ if (pp->idx == 0 && - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), + "interrupt-controller")) { + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); if (!pp->irq) { dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); } } pp->irq_shared = false; pp->gpio_base = -1; - pp->name = port_np->full_name; + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; } return pdata; diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c index 0421374..265bd3c 100644 --- a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int intel_quark_gpio_setup(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct mfd_cell *cell) return -ENOMEM; /* Set the properties for portA */ - pdata->properties->node = NULL; + pdata->properties->fwnode = NULL; pdata->properties->name = "intel-quark-x1000-gpio-portA"; pdata->properties->idx = 0; pdata->properties->ngpio = INTEL_QUARK_MFD_NGPIO; diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h index 28702c8..80954f2 100644 --- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ #define GPIO_DW_APB_H struct dwapb_port_property { - struct device_node *node; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; const char *name; unsigned int idx; unsigned int ngpio; -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++---------------- drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 2 +- include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c index 597de1e..0ebbdf1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c @@ -290,14 +290,14 @@ static void dwapb_configure_irqs(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, struct dwapb_port_property *pp) { struct gpio_chip *gc = &port->gc; - struct device_node *node = pp->node; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = pp->fwnode; struct irq_chip_generic *irq_gc = NULL; unsigned int hwirq, ngpio = gc->ngpio; struct irq_chip_type *ct; int err, i; - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); if (!gpio->domain) return; @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, } #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); #endif port->gc.ngpio = pp->ngpio; port->gc.base = pp->gpio_base; @@ -449,17 +449,16 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) static struct dwapb_platform_data * dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) { - struct device_node *node, *port_np; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; struct dwapb_port_property *pp; int nports; int i; - node = dev->of_node; - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); - nports = of_get_child_count(node); + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); if (nports == 0) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); @@ -474,21 +473,21 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) pdata->nports = nports; i = 0; - for_each_child_of_node(node, port_np) { + device_for_each_child_node(dev, fwnode) { pp = &pdata->properties[i++]; - pp->node = port_np; + pp->fwnode = fwnode; - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", &pp->ngpio)) { dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); pp->ngpio = 32; } @@ -497,17 +496,18 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) * the IP. */ if (pp->idx == 0 && - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), + "interrupt-controller")) { + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); if (!pp->irq) { dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", - port_np->full_name); + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); } } pp->irq_shared = false; pp->gpio_base = -1; - pp->name = port_np->full_name; + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; } return pdata; diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c index 0421374..265bd3c 100644 --- a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int intel_quark_gpio_setup(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct mfd_cell *cell) return -ENOMEM; /* Set the properties for portA */ - pdata->properties->node = NULL; + pdata->properties->fwnode = NULL; pdata->properties->name = "intel-quark-x1000-gpio-portA"; pdata->properties->idx = 0; pdata->properties->ngpio = INTEL_QUARK_MFD_NGPIO; diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h index 28702c8..80954f2 100644 --- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ #define GPIO_DW_APB_H struct dwapb_port_property { - struct device_node *node; + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; const char *name; unsigned int idx; unsigned int ngpio; -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang (?) @ 2016-02-24 13:46 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu -1 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-24 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qiujiang Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, > so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. > > This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, > since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. > > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> Yes, something like this. Though I have questions: - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? What prevents us to move to device property API directly? > - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, > - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); > + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, > + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); Are they equivalent? > @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO > - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; > + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); If fwnode is not OF one? Perhaps, something like ... = is_of_node() ? to_of_node() : NULL; > - node = dev->of_node; > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? > > - nports = of_get_child_count(node); > + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); > if (nports == 0) > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. > - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || > + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || device_property_*() ? > pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { > dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", > - port_np->full_name); > + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); If it's not OF? > - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", > + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", Ditto. > &pp->ngpio)) { > dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", > - port_np->full_name); > + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); Ditto. > if (pp->idx == 0 && > - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { > - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); > + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), > + "interrupt-controller")) { device_property_*() ? > + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); > if (!pp->irq) { > dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", > - port_np->full_name); > + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > } > } > > pp->irq_shared = false; > pp->gpio_base = -1; > - pp->name = port_np->full_name; > + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; > } > > return pdata; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-24 13:46 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-25 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, >> so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. >> >> This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, >> since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. >> >> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> > > Yes, something like this. > Though I have questions: > - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? > What prevents us to move to device property API directly? Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. If there is any other more way to traverse child nodes, let me know. Thank you. > >> - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, >> - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); >> + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, >> + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); > > Are they equivalent? Yes, they are equivalent. > >> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO >> - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; >> + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); > > If fwnode is not OF one? > Perhaps, something like ... = is_of_node() ? to_of_node() : NULL; > The way you suggested is more resonable, I will fixed it in next version. > >> - node = dev->of_node; >> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? > Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. >> >> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >> if (nports == 0) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. I am not very clear here. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || > > device_property_*() ? > >> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { >> dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > If it's not OF? This is checked above, and patch2 will remove it. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", > > Ditto. > >> &pp->ngpio)) { >> dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > Ditto. > >> if (pp->idx == 0 && >> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { >> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); >> + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), >> + "interrupt-controller")) { > > device_property_*() ? > >> + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); >> if (!pp->irq) { >> dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> } >> } >> >> pp->irq_shared = false; >> pp->gpio_base = -1; >> - pp->name = port_np->full_name; >> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; >> } >> >> return pdata; > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode @ 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-25 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, >> so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. >> >> This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, >> since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. >> >> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> > > Yes, something like this. > Though I have questions: > - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? > What prevents us to move to device property API directly? Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. If there is any other more way to traverse child nodes, let me know. Thank you. > >> - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, >> - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); >> + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, >> + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); > > Are they equivalent? Yes, they are equivalent. > >> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO >> - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; >> + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); > > If fwnode is not OF one? > Perhaps, something like ... = is_of_node() ? to_of_node() : NULL; > The way you suggested is more resonable, I will fixed it in next version. > >> - node = dev->of_node; >> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? > Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. >> >> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >> if (nports == 0) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. I am not very clear here. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || > > device_property_*() ? > >> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { >> dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > If it's not OF? This is checked above, and patch2 will remove it. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", > > Ditto. > >> &pp->ngpio)) { >> dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > Ditto. > >> if (pp->idx == 0 && >> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { >> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); >> + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), >> + "interrupt-controller")) { > > device_property_*() ? > >> + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); >> if (!pp->irq) { >> dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> } >> } >> >> pp->irq_shared = false; >> pp->gpio_base = -1; >> - pp->name = port_np->full_name; >> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; >> } >> >> return pdata; > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-25 13:43 ` Andy Shevchenko -1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-25 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qiujiang Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? >> What prevents us to move to device property API directly? > Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, > device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This > API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device > property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() > and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. Right, looks okay then. >>> - node = dev->of_node; >>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> >> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >> > Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was > supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take care of that, will it? >>> >>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>> if (nports == 0) >>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> >> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. > This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. > I am not very clear here. See above. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode @ 2016-02-25 13:43 ` Andy Shevchenko 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-25 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qiujiang Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? >> What prevents us to move to device property API directly? > Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, > device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This > API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device > property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() > and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. Right, looks okay then. >>> - node = dev->of_node; >>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> >> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >> > Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was > supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take care of that, will it? >>> >>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>> if (nports == 0) >>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> >> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. > This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. > I am not very clear here. See above. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-25 13:43 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-27 7:15 ` Jiang Qiu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-27 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/25 21:43, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > >>> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? >>> What prevents us to move to device property API directly? >> Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, >> device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This >> API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device >> property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() >> and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. > > Right, looks okay then. > >>>> - node = dev->of_node; >>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >>> >> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was >> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. > > Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take > care of that, will it? Right, device_get_child_node_count() will take of it, this should be removed. > >>>> >>>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>> if (nports == 0) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. >> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. >> I am not very clear here. > > See above. Here, device_get_child_node_count will return ZERO if there is not any child. So, I think this will work ok, will it? > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode @ 2016-02-27 7:15 ` Jiang Qiu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-27 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/25 21:43, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > >>> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? >>> What prevents us to move to device property API directly? >> Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, >> device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This >> API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device >> property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() >> and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. > > Right, looks okay then. > >>>> - node = dev->of_node; >>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >>> >> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was >> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. > > Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take > care of that, will it? Right, device_get_child_node_count() will take of it, this should be removed. > >>>> >>>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>> if (nports == 0) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. >> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. >> I am not very clear here. > > See above. Here, device_get_child_node_count will return ZERO if there is not any child. So, I think this will work ok, will it? > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode 2016-02-27 7:15 ` Jiang Qiu (?) @ 2016-02-29 10:46 ` Andy Shevchenko -1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-29 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qiujiang Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>> - node = dev->of_node; >>>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>>> >>>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >>>> >>> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was >>> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. >> >> Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take >> care of that, will it? > Right, device_get_child_node_count() will take of it, this should be removed. >> >>>>> >>>>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>>>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>>> if (nports == 0) >>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>>> >>>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. >>> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. >>> I am not very clear here. >> >> See above. > Here, device_get_child_node_count will return ZERO if there is not any child. > So, I think this will work ok, will it? I didn't check deeply, but I assume so. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang -1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patch modifies the designware gpio controller driver to support the gpio-signaled acpi events. This is used for power button on hisilicon D02 board(an arm64 platform). The corresponding DSDT table is defined as follows: Device(GPI0) { Name(_HID, "HISI0181") Name(_ADR, 0) Name(_UID, 0) Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0x802e0000, 0x10000) Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive,,,) {344} }) Device(PRTa) { Name (_DSD, Package () { Package () { Package () {"reg",0}, Package () {"snps,nr-gpios",32}, } }) } Name (_AEI, ResourceTemplate () { GpioInt(Edge, ActiveLow, ExclusiveAndWake, PullUp, , " \\_SB.GPI0") {8} }) Method (_E08, 0x0, NotSerialized) { Notify (\_SB.PWRB, 0x80) } } Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c index 0ebbdf1..d961d3b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ * * All enquiries to support@picochip.com */ +#include <linux/acpi.h> #include <linux/gpio/driver.h> /* FIXME: for gpio_get_value(), replace this with direct register read */ #include <linux/gpio.h> @@ -25,6 +26,7 @@ #include <linux/spinlock.h> #include <linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h> #include <linux/slab.h> +#include "gpiolib.h" #define GPIO_SWPORTA_DR 0x00 #define GPIO_SWPORTA_DDR 0x04 @@ -434,6 +436,10 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, else port->is_registered = true; + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */ + if (pp->irq) + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&(port->gc)); + return err; } @@ -447,7 +453,7 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) } static struct dwapb_platform_data * -dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) +dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev) { struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; @@ -455,9 +461,6 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) int nports; int i; - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); - nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); if (nports == 0) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); @@ -479,15 +482,13 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { - dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); + dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index\n"); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", &pp->ngpio)) { - dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); + dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios\n"); pp->ngpio = 32; } @@ -495,7 +496,7 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of * the IP. */ - if (pp->idx == 0 && + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 && of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), "interrupt-controller")) { pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); @@ -505,9 +506,17 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) } } + if (has_acpi_companion(dev) && pp->idx == 0) + pp->irq = platform_get_irq(to_platform_device(dev), 0); + pp->irq_shared = false; pp->gpio_base = -1; - pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; + + if (dev->of_node) + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; + + if (has_acpi_companion(dev)) + pp->name = acpi_dev_name(to_acpi_device_node(fwnode)); } return pdata; @@ -523,7 +532,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev); if (!pdata) { - pdata = dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(dev); + pdata = dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(dev); if (IS_ERR(pdata)) return PTR_ERR(pdata); } @@ -580,6 +589,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id dwapb_of_match[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dwapb_of_match); +static const struct acpi_device_id dwapb_acpi_match[] = { + {"HISI0181", 0}, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dwapb_acpi_match); + #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP static int dwapb_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev) { @@ -674,6 +689,7 @@ static struct platform_driver dwapb_gpio_driver = { .name = "gpio-dwapb", .pm = &dwapb_gpio_pm_ops, .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(dwapb_of_match), + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(dwapb_acpi_match), }, .probe = dwapb_gpio_probe, .remove = dwapb_gpio_remove, -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button @ 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: qiujiang @ 2016-02-24 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linus.walleij, gnurou Cc: mika.westerberg, andy.shevchenko, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin This patch modifies the designware gpio controller driver to support the gpio-signaled acpi events. This is used for power button on hisilicon D02 board(an arm64 platform). The corresponding DSDT table is defined as follows: Device(GPI0) { Name(_HID, "HISI0181") Name(_ADR, 0) Name(_UID, 0) Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0x802e0000, 0x10000) Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive,,,) {344} }) Device(PRTa) { Name (_DSD, Package () { Package () { Package () {"reg",0}, Package () {"snps,nr-gpios",32}, } }) } Name (_AEI, ResourceTemplate () { GpioInt(Edge, ActiveLow, ExclusiveAndWake, PullUp, , " \\_SB.GPI0") {8} }) Method (_E08, 0x0, NotSerialized) { Notify (\_SB.PWRB, 0x80) } } Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c index 0ebbdf1..d961d3b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ * * All enquiries to support@picochip.com */ +#include <linux/acpi.h> #include <linux/gpio/driver.h> /* FIXME: for gpio_get_value(), replace this with direct register read */ #include <linux/gpio.h> @@ -25,6 +26,7 @@ #include <linux/spinlock.h> #include <linux/platform_data/gpio-dwapb.h> #include <linux/slab.h> +#include "gpiolib.h" #define GPIO_SWPORTA_DR 0x00 #define GPIO_SWPORTA_DDR 0x04 @@ -434,6 +436,10 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, else port->is_registered = true; + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */ + if (pp->irq) + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&(port->gc)); + return err; } @@ -447,7 +453,7 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) } static struct dwapb_platform_data * -dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) +dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev) { struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; @@ -455,9 +461,6 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) int nports; int i; - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); - nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); if (nports == 0) return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); @@ -479,15 +482,13 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { - dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); + dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index\n"); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", &pp->ngpio)) { - dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); + dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios\n"); pp->ngpio = 32; } @@ -495,7 +496,7 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of * the IP. */ - if (pp->idx == 0 && + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 && of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), "interrupt-controller")) { pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); @@ -505,9 +506,17 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) } } + if (has_acpi_companion(dev) && pp->idx == 0) + pp->irq = platform_get_irq(to_platform_device(dev), 0); + pp->irq_shared = false; pp->gpio_base = -1; - pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; + + if (dev->of_node) + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; + + if (has_acpi_companion(dev)) + pp->name = acpi_dev_name(to_acpi_device_node(fwnode)); } return pdata; @@ -523,7 +532,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev); if (!pdata) { - pdata = dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(dev); + pdata = dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(dev); if (IS_ERR(pdata)) return PTR_ERR(pdata); } @@ -580,6 +589,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id dwapb_of_match[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dwapb_of_match); +static const struct acpi_device_id dwapb_acpi_match[] = { + {"HISI0181", 0}, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dwapb_acpi_match); + #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP static int dwapb_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev) { @@ -674,6 +689,7 @@ static struct platform_driver dwapb_gpio_driver = { .name = "gpio-dwapb", .pm = &dwapb_gpio_pm_ops, .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(dwapb_of_match), + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(dwapb_acpi_match), }, .probe = dwapb_gpio_probe, .remove = dwapb_gpio_remove, -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang (?) @ 2016-02-24 13:49 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-25 12:13 ` Jiang Qiu -1 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-24 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qiujiang Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: > This patch modifies the designware gpio controller driver to > support the gpio-signaled acpi events. This is used for power > button on hisilicon D02 board(an arm64 platform). > @@ -434,6 +436,10 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, > else > port->is_registered = true; > > + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */ > + if (pp->irq) > + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&(port->gc)); Redundant parens. > @@ -447,7 +453,7 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) > } > > static struct dwapb_platform_data * > -dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) > +dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev) > { > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; > struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; > @@ -455,9 +461,6 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) > int nports; > int i; > > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) > - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > - I think it belongs to patch 1. > @@ -479,15 +482,13 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) > > if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || > pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { > - dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", > - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > + dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index\n"); Ditto. > - dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", > - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > + dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios\n"); Ditto. > @@ -495,7 +496,7 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) > * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of > * the IP. > */ > - if (pp->idx == 0 && > + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 && Why is it needed? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button 2016-02-24 13:49 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2016-02-25 12:13 ` Jiang Qiu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-25 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/24 21:49, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> This patch modifies the designware gpio controller driver to >> support the gpio-signaled acpi events. This is used for power >> button on hisilicon D02 board(an arm64 platform). > >> @@ -434,6 +436,10 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> else >> port->is_registered = true; >> >> + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */ >> + if (pp->irq) >> + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&(port->gc)); > > Redundant parens. OK, fixed it in next version, thank you. > >> @@ -447,7 +453,7 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) >> } >> >> static struct dwapb_platform_data * >> -dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> +dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; >> struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; >> @@ -455,9 +461,6 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> int nports; >> int i; >> > >> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> - > > I think it belongs to patch 1. If these code remove to patch1, it will contain ACPI support and patch2 implement GPIO-signaled acpi events support only. Maybe this patchset partition looks more clearly, I think. > >> @@ -479,15 +482,13 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> >> if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || >> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { >> - dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", >> - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> + dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index\n"); > > Ditto. > >> - dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", >> - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> + dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios\n"); > > Ditto. > >> @@ -495,7 +496,7 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of >> * the IP. >> */ >> - if (pp->idx == 0 && >> + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 && > > Why is it needed? Different APIs was used to parse interrupt resource for DT and ACPI, a unified way platform_get_irq looks like more resonable, I will fixed it in the next version. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button @ 2016-02-25 12:13 ` Jiang Qiu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jiang Qiu @ 2016-02-25 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, linux-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-acpi, linuxarm, haifeng.wei, charles.chenxin 在 2016/2/24 21:49, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> This patch modifies the designware gpio controller driver to >> support the gpio-signaled acpi events. This is used for power >> button on hisilicon D02 board(an arm64 platform). > >> @@ -434,6 +436,10 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> else >> port->is_registered = true; >> >> + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */ >> + if (pp->irq) >> + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&(port->gc)); > > Redundant parens. OK, fixed it in next version, thank you. > >> @@ -447,7 +453,7 @@ static void dwapb_gpio_unregister(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio) >> } >> >> static struct dwapb_platform_data * >> -dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> +dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; >> struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata; >> @@ -455,9 +461,6 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> int nports; >> int i; >> > >> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> - > > I think it belongs to patch 1. If these code remove to patch1, it will contain ACPI support and patch2 implement GPIO-signaled acpi events support only. Maybe this patchset partition looks more clearly, I think. > >> @@ -479,15 +482,13 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> >> if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || >> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { >> - dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", >> - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> + dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index\n"); > > Ditto. > >> - dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", >> - to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> + dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios\n"); > > Ditto. > >> @@ -495,7 +496,7 @@ dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev) >> * Only port A can provide interrupts in all configurations of >> * the IP. >> */ >> - if (pp->idx == 0 && >> + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 && > > Why is it needed? Different APIs was used to parse interrupt resource for DT and ACPI, a unified way platform_get_irq looks like more resonable, I will fixed it in the next version. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-29 10:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-02-24 12:33 [PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button qiujiang 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 2016-02-24 12:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode qiujiang 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 2016-02-24 13:46 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu 2016-02-25 11:58 ` Jiang Qiu 2016-02-25 13:43 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-25 13:43 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-27 7:15 ` Jiang Qiu 2016-02-27 7:15 ` Jiang Qiu 2016-02-29 10:46 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-24 12:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button qiujiang 2016-02-24 12:33 ` qiujiang 2016-02-24 13:49 ` Andy Shevchenko 2016-02-25 12:13 ` Jiang Qiu 2016-02-25 12:13 ` Jiang Qiu
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.