[PATCH 1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[PATCH 1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[Felix Fietkau]

On some BCM5301x ARM devices, user space still needs to control some
system GPIO pins for which no driver exists. This is a lot easier to do
with a predictable GPIO base.

Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
---
 drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c b/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
index 74ccb02..9b8d9bf 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
@@ -235,16 +235,17 @@ int bcma_gpio_init(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc)
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * On MIPS we register GPIO devices (LEDs, buttons) using absolute GPIO
-	 * pin numbers. We don't have Device Tree there and we can't really use
-	 * relative (per chip) numbers.
-	 * So let's use predictable base for BCM47XX and "random" for all other.
+	 * Register SoC GPIO devices with absolute GPIO pin base.
+	 * On MIPS, we don't have Device Tree and we can't use relative (per chip)
+	 * GPIO numbers.
+	 * On some ARM devices, user space may want to access some system GPIO
+	 * pins directly, which is easier to do with a predictable GPIO base.
 	 */
-#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX)
-	chip->base		= bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
-#else
-	chip->base		= -1;
-#endif
+	if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX) ||
+	    cc->core->bus->hosttype == BCMA_HOSTTYPE_SOC)
+		chip->base		= bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
+	else
+		chip->base		= -1;
 
 	err = bcma_gpio_irq_domain_init(cc);
 	if (err)
-- 
2.2.2

[PATCH 2/2] bcma: enable 32 GPIO pins for BCM4707

[Felix Fietkau]

Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
---
 drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c b/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
index 9b8d9bf..5f6018e 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/driver_gpio.c
@@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ int bcma_gpio_init(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc)
 		chip->of_node	= cc->core->dev.of_node;
 #endif
 	switch (bus->chipinfo.id) {
+	case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707:
 	case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM5357:
 	case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53572:
 		chip->ngpio	= 32;
-- 
2.2.2

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 15 April 2015 at 15:07, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> @@ -235,16 +235,17 @@ int bcma_gpio_init(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc)
>         }
>
>         /*
> -        * On MIPS we register GPIO devices (LEDs, buttons) using absolute GPIO
> -        * pin numbers. We don't have Device Tree there and we can't really use
> -        * relative (per chip) numbers.
> -        * So let's use predictable base for BCM47XX and "random" for all other.
> +        * Register SoC GPIO devices with absolute GPIO pin base.
> +        * On MIPS, we don't have Device Tree and we can't use relative (per chip)
> +        * GPIO numbers.
> +        * On some ARM devices, user space may want to access some system GPIO
> +        * pins directly, which is easier to do with a predictable GPIO base.
>          */
> -#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX)
> -       chip->base              = bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
> -#else
> -       chip->base              = -1;
> -#endif
> +       if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX) ||
> +           cc->core->bus->hosttype == BCMA_HOSTTYPE_SOC)
> +               chip->base              = bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
> +       else
> +               chip->base              = -1;

Is there any chance you will need predictable GPIO numbers of extra
bcma buses on ARM? Like accessing GPIO of PCIe card from user space?
Then you could prefer IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_5301X)

Anyway, I'm OK with this patch.

-- 
Rafał

Re: [PATCH 2/2] bcma: enable 32 GPIO pins for BCM4707

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 15 April 2015 at 15:07, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>

Looks OK, thanks.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2015-04-15 16:33, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 15 April 2015 at 15:07, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
>> @@ -235,16 +235,17 @@ int bcma_gpio_init(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc)
>>         }
>>
>>         /*
>> -        * On MIPS we register GPIO devices (LEDs, buttons) using absolute GPIO
>> -        * pin numbers. We don't have Device Tree there and we can't really use
>> -        * relative (per chip) numbers.
>> -        * So let's use predictable base for BCM47XX and "random" for all other.
>> +        * Register SoC GPIO devices with absolute GPIO pin base.
>> +        * On MIPS, we don't have Device Tree and we can't use relative (per chip)
>> +        * GPIO numbers.
>> +        * On some ARM devices, user space may want to access some system GPIO
>> +        * pins directly, which is easier to do with a predictable GPIO base.
>>          */
>> -#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX)
>> -       chip->base              = bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
>> -#else
>> -       chip->base              = -1;
>> -#endif
>> +       if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BCM47XX) ||
>> +           cc->core->bus->hosttype == BCMA_HOSTTYPE_SOC)
>> +               chip->base              = bus->num * BCMA_GPIO_MAX_PINS;
>> +       else
>> +               chip->base              = -1;
> 
> Is there any chance you will need predictable GPIO numbers of extra
> bcma buses on ARM? Like accessing GPIO of PCIe card from user space?
> Then you could prefer IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_5301X)
> 
> Anyway, I'm OK with this patch.
I don't think I need it, and I didn't want this change to produce
conflicts on multi-arch builds, so I limited it to the SoC bus only.

- Felix

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 15 April 2015 at 16:36, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> On 2015-04-15 16:33, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm OK with this patch.
> I don't think I need it, and I didn't want this change to produce
> conflicts on multi-arch builds, so I limited it to the SoC bus only.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Rafał

Re: [1/2] bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins

[Kalle Valo]

> On some BCM5301x ARM devices, user space still needs to control some
> system GPIO pins for which no driver exists. This is a lot easier to do
> with a predictable GPIO base.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>

Thanks, 2 patches applied to wireless-drivers-next.git:

2d57b7126d6d bcma: use absolute base for SoC GPIO pins
f022ea52d9a5 bcma: enable 32 GPIO pins for BCM4707

Kalle Valo