[PATCH 1/2] gpio: davinci: Remove redundant members davinci_gpio_controller stuct

[PATCH 1/2] gpio: davinci: Remove redundant members davinci_gpio_controller stuct

[Keerthy]

davinci_gpio_controller struct has set_data, in_data, clr_data
members that are assigned and never used.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c                | 3 ---
 include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 3 ---
 2 files changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index 9191056..163f81e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -266,9 +266,6 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		if (!regs)
 			return -ENXIO;
 		chips[i].regs = regs;
-		chips[i].set_data = &regs->set_data;
-		chips[i].clr_data = &regs->clr_data;
-		chips[i].in_data = &regs->in_data;
 
 		gpiochip_add_data(&chips[i].chip, &chips[i]);
 	}
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
index 6ace3fd..44ca530 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
@@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_controller {
 	/* Serialize access to GPIO registers */
 	spinlock_t		lock;
 	void __iomem		*regs;
-	void __iomem		*set_data;
-	void __iomem		*clr_data;
-	void __iomem		*in_data;
 	int			gpio_unbanked;
 	unsigned		gpio_irq;
 };
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Keerthy]

gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.

Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 30 +++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index 163f81e..26b874a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -43,25 +43,7 @@ struct davinci_gpio_regs {
 #define MAX_LABEL_SIZE 20
 
 static void __iomem *gpio_base;
-
-static struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *gpio2regs(unsigned gpio)
-{
-	void __iomem *ptr;
-
-	if (gpio < 32 * 1)
-		ptr = gpio_base + 0x10;
-	else if (gpio < 32 * 2)
-		ptr = gpio_base + 0x38;
-	else if (gpio < 32 * 3)
-		ptr = gpio_base + 0x60;
-	else if (gpio < 32 * 4)
-		ptr = gpio_base + 0x88;
-	else if (gpio < 32 * 5)
-		ptr = gpio_base + 0xb0;
-	else
-		ptr = NULL;
-	return ptr;
-}
+static unsigned int offset_array[5] = {0x10, 0x38, 0x60, 0x88, 0xb0};
 
 static inline struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *irq2regs(struct irq_data *d)
 {
@@ -262,7 +244,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 #endif
 		spin_lock_init(&chips[i].lock);
 
-		regs = gpio2regs(base);
+		regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];
 		if (!regs)
 			return -ENXIO;
 		chips[i].regs = regs;
@@ -417,7 +399,9 @@ static int gpio_irq_type_unbanked(struct irq_data *data, unsigned trigger)
 davinci_gpio_irq_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
 		     irq_hw_number_t hw)
 {
-	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
+	struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
+				(struct davinci_gpio_controller *)d->host_data;
+	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;
 
 	irq_set_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &gpio_irqchip, handle_simple_irq,
 				"davinci_gpio");
@@ -554,7 +538,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		irq_chip->irq_set_type = gpio_irq_type_unbanked;
 
 		/* default trigger: both edges */
-		g = gpio2regs(0);
+		g = chips[0].regs;
 		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->set_falling);
 		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->set_rising);
 
@@ -574,7 +558,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	 */
 	for (gpio = 0, bank = 0; gpio < ngpio; bank++, bank_irq++, gpio += 16) {
 		/* disabled by default, enabled only as needed */
-		g = gpio2regs(gpio);
+		g = chips[bank / 2].regs;
 		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->clr_falling);
 		writel_relaxed(~0, &g->clr_rising);
 
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:

> gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
> one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
> array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

> -               regs = gpio2regs(base);
> +               regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];

I understand this.

> -       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
> +       struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
> +                               (struct davinci_gpio_controller *)d->host_data;
> +       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;

And this, if each instans has 32 GPIOs.

> -               g = gpio2regs(0);
> +               g = chips[0].regs;

Also makes sense.

> -               g = gpio2regs(gpio);
> +               g = chips[bank / 2].regs;

But what is this? I don't understand that /2 at all. Please insert a
comment explaining it so I can figure it out. Are there two banks
per instance?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Keerthy]

On Wednesday 11 January 2017 04:34 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
>> one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
>> array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
>
>> -               regs = gpio2regs(base);
>> +               regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];
>
> I understand this.
>
>> -       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
>> +       struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
>> +                               (struct davinci_gpio_controller *)d->host_data;
>> +       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;
>
> And this, if each instans has 32 GPIOs.
>
>> -               g = gpio2regs(0);
>> +               g = chips[0].regs;
>
> Also makes sense.
>
>> -               g = gpio2regs(gpio);
>> +               g = chips[bank / 2].regs;
>
> But what is this? I don't understand that /2 at all. Please insert a
> comment explaining it so I can figure it out. Are there two banks
> per instance?

Yes! There are register sets for 32 GPIOs. 2 banks of 16 GPIOs are 
covered by each set of registers hence /2. Shall i add a comment and 
send this patch alone separately?


>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 04:34 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>
>>> gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
>>> one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
>>> array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
>>
>>
>>> -               regs = gpio2regs(base);
>>> +               regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];
>>
>>
>> I understand this.
>>
>>> -       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
>>> +                               (struct davinci_gpio_controller
>>> *)d->host_data;
>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;
>>
>>
>> And this, if each instans has 32 GPIOs.
>>
>>> -               g = gpio2regs(0);
>>> +               g = chips[0].regs;
>>
>>
>> Also makes sense.
>>
>>> -               g = gpio2regs(gpio);
>>> +               g = chips[bank / 2].regs;
>>
>>
>> But what is this? I don't understand that /2 at all. Please insert a
>> comment explaining it so I can figure it out. Are there two banks
>> per instance?
>
>
> Yes! There are register sets for 32 GPIOs. 2 banks of 16 GPIOs are covered
> by each set of registers hence /2. Shall i add a comment and send this patch
> alone separately?

Yeah.

I am currently confused by several patch sets for davinci in my inbox,
can you rebase on my devel branch when I push it and resend
*all* you have cooking for DaVinci?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Keerthy]

On Wednesday 11 January 2017 09:23 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 04:34 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
>>>> one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
>>>> array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -               regs = gpio2regs(base);
>>>> +               regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand this.
>>>
>>>> -       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
>>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
>>>> +                               (struct davinci_gpio_controller
>>>> *)d->host_data;
>>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> And this, if each instans has 32 GPIOs.
>>>
>>>> -               g = gpio2regs(0);
>>>> +               g = chips[0].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> Also makes sense.
>>>
>>>> -               g = gpio2regs(gpio);
>>>> +               g = chips[bank / 2].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> But what is this? I don't understand that /2 at all. Please insert a
>>> comment explaining it so I can figure it out. Are there two banks
>>> per instance?
>>
>>
>> Yes! There are register sets for 32 GPIOs. 2 banks of 16 GPIOs are covered
>> by each set of registers hence /2. Shall i add a comment and send this patch
>> alone separately?
>
> Yeah.
>
> I am currently confused by several patch sets for davinci in my inbox,
> can you rebase on my devel branch when I push it and resend
> *all* you have cooking for DaVinci?

Sure Linus i will do that.

Thanks,
Keerthy

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: davinci: Remove gpio2regs function to accommodate multi instances

[Keerthy]

On Wednesday 11 January 2017 09:23 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 11 January 2017 04:34 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gpio2regs is written making an assumption that driver supports only
>>>> one instance of gpio controller. Removing this and adding a generic
>>>> array so as to support multiple instances of gpio controllers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -               regs = gpio2regs(base);
>>>> +               regs = gpio_base + offset_array[i];
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand this.
>>>
>>>> -       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = gpio2regs(hw);
>>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips =
>>>> +                               (struct davinci_gpio_controller
>>>> *)d->host_data;
>>>> +       struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g = chips[hw / 32].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> And this, if each instans has 32 GPIOs.
>>>
>>>> -               g = gpio2regs(0);
>>>> +               g = chips[0].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> Also makes sense.
>>>
>>>> -               g = gpio2regs(gpio);
>>>> +               g = chips[bank / 2].regs;
>>>
>>>
>>> But what is this? I don't understand that /2 at all. Please insert a
>>> comment explaining it so I can figure it out. Are there two banks
>>> per instance?
>>
>>
>> Yes! There are register sets for 32 GPIOs. 2 banks of 16 GPIOs are covered
>> by each set of registers hence /2. Shall i add a comment and send this patch
>> alone separately?
>
> Yeah.
>
> I am currently confused by several patch sets for davinci in my inbox,
> can you rebase on my devel branch when I push it and resend
> *all* you have cooking for DaVinci?

I am assuming that Patch 1 from this is applied. I will club this one 
along with my latest series and send a new v2 series so that all are in 
one place.

Thanks,
Keerthy
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: davinci: Remove redundant members davinci_gpio_controller stuct

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:

> davinci_gpio_controller struct has set_data, in_data, clr_data
> members that are assigned and never used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

Nice catch!

Patch applied.

Yours,
Linus Walleij