Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210701002037.912625-1-drew@beagleboard.org> <20210701002037.912625-3-drew@beagleboard.org>
 <8c59105d32a9936f8806501ecd20e044@walle.cc> <CACRpkdbhKsuXZiLCh_iajJQWDdQQOZ87QF3xDr5Vc66SoVCnxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210726071124.GA9184@x1> <dad13b899b69436acc1804b7c3438639@walle.cc>
 <20210727052851.GA3147871@x1> <ff76b62927e3f5f016f6c4c11ca16ccf@walle.cc>
In-Reply-To: <ff76b62927e3f5f016f6c4c11ca16ccf@walle.cc>
From:   Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:59:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CANBLGczfrmv1tzFm=Fu6B_S8nZ=ckwd3DOBkN4x7BUZtAg7bdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATH 2/2] gpio: starfive-jh7100: Add StarFive JH7100 GPIO driver
To:     Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Cc:     Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Michael Zhu <michael.zhu@starfivetech.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Fu Wei <tekkamanninja@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Huan Feng <huan.feng@starfivetech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 11:49, Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
> Hi Drew,
> Am 2021-07-27 07:28, schrieb Drew Fustini:
> [..]
> >> > > Drew please look at drivers/gpio/gpio-ftgpio010.c for an example
> >> > > of GPIO_GENERIC calling bgpio_init() in probe().
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for the suggestion. However, I am not sure that will work for
> >> > this SoC.
> >> >
> >> > The GPIO registers are described in section 12 of JH7100 datasheet [1]
> >> > and I don't think they fit the expectation of gpio-mmio.c because there
> >> > is a seperate register for each GPIO line for output data value and
> >> > output enable.
> >> >
> >> > There are 64 output data config registers which are 4 bytes wide. There
> >> > are 64 output enable config registers which are 4 bytes wide too. Output
> >> > data and output enable registers for a given GPIO pad are contiguous.
> >> > GPIO0_DOUT_CFG is 0x50 and GPIO0_DOEN_CFG is 0x54 while GPIO1_DOUT_CFG
> >> > is 0x58 and GPIO1_DOEN_CFG is 0x5C. The stride between GPIO pads is
> >> > effectively 8, which yields the formula: GPIOn_DOUT_CFG is 0x50+8n.
> >> > Similarly, GPIO0_DOEN_CFG is 0x54 and thus GPIOn_DOEN_CFG is 0x54+8n.
> >> >
> >> > However, GPIO input data does use just one bit for each line. GPIODIN_0
> >> > at 0x48 covers GPIO[31:0] and GPIODIN_1 at 0x4c covers GPIO[63:32].
>
> Mh, I'm not sure I'm understanding the datasheet/registers. _DOUT_CFG
> and _DOEN_CFG seem to specify the pad where this GPIO is mapped to.
> Shouldn't this be some kind of pinctrl then? Apparently you can map
> any GPIO number to any output pad, no? Or at least to all pads
> which are described in Table 11-2. What happens if two different GPIOs
> are mapped to the same pad? Bit 31 in these _CFG seems to be an invert
> bit, but what does it invert?
>
> Similar, the input GPIOs are connected to an output pad by all the
> GPI_*_CFG registers.
>
> To me it seems, that there two multiplexers for each GPIO, where
> you can connect any GPIOn to any input pad and output pad. Sound
> like a huge overkill. I must be missing something here.
>
> But what puzzles me the most, where do I set the actual GPIO output
> value?

Yeah, it's a little confusing. The DOUT registers choose between a number of
signals from various peripherals to control the output value of the
pin. Similarly
the DOEN registers chose between a number of signals to control the output
enable of the pin. However, two of those signals are special in that they are
constant 0 or constant 1. This is how you control the output value and output
enable from software like a regular GPIO.

You're completely right though. This ought to be managed by a proper pinctrl
driver, and I'm working on one here:
https://github.com/esmil/linux/commits/beaglev-pinctrl

> >> I'd say, that should work with the .reg_mask_xlate of the gpio-regmap.
> >>
> >> -michael
> >
> > Thanks, yes, I think trying to figure out how .reg_mask_xlate would
> > need
> > to work this SoC.  I believe these are the only two implementations.
> >
> > From drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c:
> >
> >   static int gpio_regmap_simple_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> >                                     unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> >                                     unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> >   {
> >         unsigned int line = offset % gpio->ngpio_per_reg;
> >         unsigned int stride = offset / gpio->ngpio_per_reg;
> >
> >         *reg = base + stride * gpio->reg_stride;
> >         *mask = BIT(line);
> >
> >         return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > From drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm63xx.c:
> >
> >   static int bcm63xx_reg_mask_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> >                                   unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> >                                   unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> >   {
> >         unsigned int line = offset % BCM63XX_BANK_GPIOS;
> >         unsigned int stride = offset / BCM63XX_BANK_GPIOS;
> >
> >         *reg = base - stride * BCM63XX_BANK_SIZE;
> >         *mask = BIT(line);
> >
> >         return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > Let's say a driver calls gpio_regmap_set(chip, 0, 5) to set line 5 to
> > value 1.
> >
> > I believe this would result in call to:
> >
> >   gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, gpio->reg_set_base, 5, &reg, &mask)
> >
> > Then this would be called to set the register:
> >
> >   regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, mask);
> >
> > From datasheet section 12 [1], there are 64 output data registers which
> > are 4 bytes wide. There are 64 output enable registers which are also 4
> > bytes wide too. Output data and output enable registers for a GPIO line
> > are contiguous. Thus GPIO0_DOUT_CFG is 0x50 and GPIO0_DOEN_CFG is 0x54.
> > The forumla is GPIOn_DOUT_CFG is 0x50+8n and GPIOn_DOEN_CFG is 0x54+8n.
> > Thus for GPIO line 5:
> >
> >   GPIO5_DOUT_CFG is 0x50 + 0x28 = 0x78
> >   GPIO5_DOEN_CFG is 0x54 + 0x28 = 0x7C
> >
> > Enable GPIO line 5 as output by writing 0x1 to 0x7C and set output
> > value
> > to 1 by writing 1 to 0x7C.
> >
> > Using gpio_regmap_simple_xlate() as a template, I am thinking through
> > xlate for this gpio controller:
> >
> >
> > static int gpio_regmap_starfive_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> >                                     unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> >                                     unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> > {
> >       // reg_set_base is passed as base
> >       // let reg_set_base = 0x50 (GPIO0_DOUT_CFG)
> >       // let gpio->reg_stride = 8
> >       // let offest = 5 (for gpio line 5)
> >
> >       *reg = base + offset * gpio->reg_stride;
> >       // *reg = base:0x50 + offset:0x5 * reg_stride:0x8
> >       // *reg = 0x50 + 0x28
> >       // *reg=  0x78
> >
> >       // Each gpio line has a full register, not just a bit. To output
> >       // a digital 1, then GPIO5_DOUT_CFG would be 0x1. To output
> >       // digital 0, GPIO5_DOUT_CFG would be 0x0. Thus I think the mask
> >       // should be the least significant bit.
> >       *mask = BIT(1);
> >
> >       return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Let's walk through what would happen if gpio_regmap_set() was the
> > caller:
> >
> > static void gpio_regmap_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int
> > offset,
> >                           int val)
> > {
> >       // for gpio line, offset = 5
> >       // if want to set line 5 high, then val = 1
> >       struct gpio_regmap *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> >
> >       // reg_set_base would be set to 0x50 (GPIO0_DOUT_CFG)
> >       unsigned int base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_set_base);
> >       unsigned int reg, mask;
> >
> >       gpio->reg_mask_xlate(gpio, base /* 0x50 */, offset /* 5 */, &reg,
> > &mask);
> >       if (val) /* if val is 1 */
> >               regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, mask);
> >               // if mask returned was 0x1, then this would set the
> >               // bit 0 in GPIO5_DOUT_CFG
> >       else /* if val is 0 */
> >               regmap_update_bits(gpio->regmap, reg, mask, 0);
> >               // if mask returned was 0x1, then this would clear
> >               // bit 0 in GPIO5_DOUT_CFG
> > }
> >
> > Now for the output enable register GPIO5_DOEN_CFG, the output driver is
> > active low so 0x0 is actually enables output where as 0x1 disables
> > output.  Thus maybe I need to add logic like:
> >
> >
> > static int gpio_regmap_starfive_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> >                                     unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> >                                     unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> > {
> >       <snip>
> >       if (base == GPIO0_DOUT_CFG)
> >               *mask = 0x1U;
> >       else if (base == GPIO0_DOEN_CFG)
> >               *bit = ~(0x1U);
> >
> >       return 0;
> > }
> >
> > What do you think of that approach?
>
> I'm also not opposed to add a new flag to gpio-regmap which
> invert the value itself.
>
> But the idea was that you can differentiate in _xlate() by the
> base register offset, like you already did:
>
> static int gpio_regmap_starfive_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
>                                       unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
>                                       unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> {
>         switch (base) {
>         case GPIO0_DOUT_CFG:
>                 /* do some custom mapping just for DOUT_CFG */
>         case GPIO0_DOEN_CFG:
>                 /* do some custom mapping just for DOEN_CFG */
>         default:
>                 /* do normal mapping */
> }
>
> > Are there any other examples of regmap xlate that I missed?
>
> No there aren't much yet. Usually the simple one is enough.
>
> -michael
>
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/starfive-tech/beaglev_doc/blob/main/JH7100%20Data%20Sheet%20V01.01.04-EN%20(4-21-2021).pdf
>