[PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[qiujiang]

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

[PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[qiujiang]

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

[PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[qiujiang]

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

[PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[qiujiang]

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

[PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[qiujiang]

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

[PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[qiujiang]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Andy Shevchenko]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[Andy Shevchenko]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Jiang Qiu]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Jiang Qiu]

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;
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[Jiang Qiu]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button

[Jiang Qiu]

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.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Andy Shevchenko]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Andy Shevchenko]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Jiang Qiu]

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

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Jiang Qiu]

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?
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

[Andy Shevchenko]

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