Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753461AbaKZRlW (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:41:22 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]:53152 "EHLO mail-la0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750828AbaKZRlT (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:41:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1386295805-13708-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1386295805-13708-2-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:41:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pinctrl: Add Qualcomm TLMM driver From: Bjorn Andersson To: Timur Tabi Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Rob Landley , Linus Walleij , Grant Likely , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , linux-arm-msm , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Bjorn Andersson > wrote: >> >> +static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl) >> +{ >> + struct gpio_chip *chip; >> + int irq; >> + int ret; >> + int i; >> + int r; >> + >> + chip = &pctrl->chip; >> + chip->base = 0; >> + chip->ngpio = pctrl->soc->ngpios; > > I know this patch is a year old, but I'm wondering if this line is correct. > Hi Timur, It's always good to review old code, so don't worry about its age of the patch or code. > The original version of your patch from 11/23/13 said this: > > + chip->ngpio = pctrl->soc->gpio_range->npins; > If you look in patchset 2 (the addition of 8974) you can see that I passed a pinctrl_gpio_range from the 8974 driver to the common driver; but I only use this to pass the number of gpios (NUM_GPIO_PINGROUPS). > and today, the line is this: > > unsigned ngpio = pctrl->soc->ngpios; > Most likely based on some review comments this was replaced with just an unsigned 'ngpios'. > I'm wondering if this line should be instead: > > unsigned ngpio = pctrl->soc->npins; > > I'm confused about the difference between msm_pinctrl_soc_data.npins > and msm_pinctrl_soc_data.ngpios. Variable "ngpio" is used by > gpiochip_add(), so I think it's not concerned with pin control. > msm_pinctrl_soc_data.npins appears to be the number of GPIOs, whereas > msm_pinctrl_soc_data.ngpios appears to be the number of pin groups. > The 'ngpio' specifies how many gpio pins/groups (they are 1:1 in the qcom case) the tlmm block sports, while 'npins' specifies how many pingroups can be controlled by pinctrl/pinconf/pinmux. So 'npins' will be 'ngpio' plus the other things that can be controlled, e.g. sdcc. The original patch assigns ngpio to be "the number of pinctrl pins in the gpio range", i.e. a subset of all pins. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/