Samuel, thanks for applying the mfd patch. I'm not sure how the rest
of these should be handled; they depend upon the first patch. Would you
prefer they go through the mfd tree, or go in via Andrew's tree?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:41:09 -0700
Andres Salomon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The cs5535-mfd driver now takes care of the PCI BAR handling; this
> simplifies the gpio driver a lot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/cs5535-gpio.c | 93
> +++++++++++++++----------------------------- 1 files changed, 31
> insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/cs5535-gpio.c b/drivers/gpio/cs5535-gpio.c
> index e23c068..ea6290f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/cs5535-gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/cs5535-gpio.c
> @@ -11,13 +11,12 @@
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> -#include <linux/pci.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/gpio.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/cs5535.h>
>
> #define DRV_NAME "cs5535-gpio"
> -#define GPIO_BAR 1
>
> /*
> * Some GPIO pins
> @@ -46,7 +45,7 @@ static struct cs5535_gpio_chip {
> struct gpio_chip chip;
> resource_size_t base;
>
> - struct pci_dev *pdev;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> spinlock_t lock;
> } cs5535_gpio_chip;
>
> @@ -226,10 +225,10 @@ static struct cs5535_gpio_chip cs5535_gpio_chip
> = { },
> };
>
> -static int __init cs5535_gpio_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> - const struct pci_device_id *pci_id)
> +static int __devinit cs5535_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> - int err;
> + struct resource *res;
> + int err = -EIO;
> ulong mask_orig = mask;
>
> /* There are two ways to get the GPIO base address; one is by
> @@ -239,25 +238,24 @@ static int __init cs5535_gpio_probe(struct
> pci_dev *pdev,
> * it turns out to be unreliable in the face of crappy
> BIOSes, we
> * can always go back to using MSRs.. */
>
> - err = pci_enable_device_io(pdev);
> - if (err) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable device IO\n");
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IO, 0);
> + if (!res) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't fetch device resource
> info\n"); goto done;
> }
>
> - err = pci_request_region(pdev, GPIO_BAR, DRV_NAME);
> - if (err) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't alloc PCI BAR #%d\n",
> GPIO_BAR);
> + if (!request_region(res->start, resource_size(res),
> pdev->name)) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't request region\n");
> goto done;
> }
>
> /* set up the driver-specific struct */
> - cs5535_gpio_chip.base = pci_resource_start(pdev, GPIO_BAR);
> + cs5535_gpio_chip.base = res->start;
> cs5535_gpio_chip.pdev = pdev;
> spin_lock_init(&cs5535_gpio_chip.lock);
>
> - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "allocated PCI BAR #%d: base 0x%llx\n",
> GPIO_BAR,
> - (unsigned long long) cs5535_gpio_chip.base);
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "region 0x%x - 0x%x reserved\n",
> + res->start, res->end);
>
> /* mask out reserved pins */
> mask &= 0x1F7FFFFF;
> @@ -275,78 +273,49 @@ static int __init cs5535_gpio_probe(struct
> pci_dev *pdev, if (err)
> goto release_region;
>
> - dev_info(&pdev->dev, DRV_NAME ": GPIO support successfully
> loaded.\n");
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "GPIO support successfully loaded.\n");
> return 0;
>
> release_region:
> - pci_release_region(pdev, GPIO_BAR);
> + release_region(res->start, resource_size(res));
> done:
> return err;
> }
>
> -static void __exit cs5535_gpio_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +static int __devexit cs5535_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> + struct resource *r;
> int err;
>
> err = gpiochip_remove(&cs5535_gpio_chip.chip);
> if (err) {
> /* uhh? */
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to remove gpio_chip?\n");
> + return err;
> }
> - pci_release_region(pdev, GPIO_BAR);
> -}
> -
> -static struct pci_device_id cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl[] = {
> - { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NS,
> PCI_DEVICE_ID_NS_CS5535_ISA) },
> - { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD,
> PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CS5536_ISA) },
> - { 0, },
> -};
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl);
>
> -/*
> - * We can't use the standard PCI driver registration stuff here,
> since
> - * that allows only one driver to bind to each PCI device (and we
> want
> - * multiple drivers to be able to bind to the device). Instead,
> manually
> - * scan for the PCI device, request a single region, and keep track
> of the
> - * devices that we're using.
> - */
> -
> -static int __init cs5535_gpio_scan_pci(void)
> -{
> - struct pci_dev *pdev;
> - int err = -ENODEV;
> - int i;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl); i++) {
> - pdev = pci_get_device(cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl[i].vendor,
> - cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl[i].device, NULL);
> - if (pdev) {
> - err = cs5535_gpio_probe(pdev,
> &cs5535_gpio_pci_tbl[i]);
> - if (err)
> - pci_dev_put(pdev);
> -
> - /* we only support a single CS5535/6
> southbridge */
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> -
> - return err;
> + r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IO, 0);
> + release_region(r->start, resource_size(r));
> + return 0;
> }
>
> -static void __exit cs5535_gpio_free_pci(void)
> -{
> - cs5535_gpio_remove(cs5535_gpio_chip.pdev);
> - pci_dev_put(cs5535_gpio_chip.pdev);
> -}
> +static struct platform_driver cs5535_gpio_drv = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = DRV_NAME,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + },
> + .probe = cs5535_gpio_probe,
> + .remove = __devexit_p(cs5535_gpio_remove),
> +};
>
> static int __init cs5535_gpio_init(void)
> {
> - return cs5535_gpio_scan_pci();
> + return platform_driver_register(&cs5535_gpio_drv);
> }
>
> static void __exit cs5535_gpio_exit(void)
> {
> - cs5535_gpio_free_pci();
> + platform_driver_unregister(&cs5535_gpio_drv);
> }
>
> module_init(cs5535_gpio_init);
Hi Andres,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:44:26PM -0800, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Samuel, thanks for applying the mfd patch. I'm not sure how the rest
> of these should be handled; they depend upon the first patch. Would you
> prefer they go through the mfd tree, or go in via Andrew's tree?
I typically take them, unless the corresponding subsystem maintainers disagree
with it. I also really much prefer to get an ACK from them before taking the
patches.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:13 +0100
Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:44:26PM -0800, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Samuel, thanks for applying the mfd patch. I'm not sure how the
> > rest of these should be handled; they depend upon the first patch.
> > Would you prefer they go through the mfd tree, or go in via
> > Andrew's tree?
> I typically take them, unless the corresponding subsystem maintainers
> disagree with it. I also really much prefer to get an ACK from them
> before taking the patches.
>
Ok. In this case, there are no subsystem maintainers for patches #2
and #3 (GPIO and misc), so there's no one to really get an ACK from.
I'm also the author for both of the modules.