Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758751AbXK3MdT (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:33:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754187AbXK3MdF (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:33:05 -0500 Received: from smtp-105-friday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.105]:2725 "EHLO mallaury.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752944AbXK3MdB (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:33:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:32:56 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: David Brownell Cc: Linux Kernel list , Felipe Balbi , Bill Gatliff , Haavard Skinnemoen , Andrew Victor , Tony Lindgren , "eric miao" , Kevin Hilman , Paul Mundt , Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2/4] pcf875x I2C GPIO expander driver Message-ID: <20071130133256.72385ea8@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <200710291851.49057.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200710291809.29936.david-b@pacbell.net> <200710291851.49057.david-b@pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.5 (GTK+ 2.10.6; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 16597 Lines: 520 Hi David, Sorry for the late review. Note that I can't test your code. On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:51:48 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > This is a new-style I2C driver for some common 8 and 16 bit I2C based > GPIO expanders: pcf8574 and pcf8575. Since it's a new-style driver, > it's configured as part of board-specific init ... eliminating the > need for error-prone manual configuration of module parameters. > > The driver exposes the GPIO signals using the platform-neutral GPIO > programming interface, so they are easily accessed by other kernel > code. The lack of such a flexible kernel API is what has ensured > the proliferation of board-specific hacks for these chips... stuff > that rarely makes it upstream since it's so ugly. This driver will > let such board-specific code use standard GPIO calls. > > Signed-off-by: David Brownell > --- > Note that there's currently a drivers/i2c/chips/pcf8574.c driver. By now there's also a drivers/i2c/chips/pcf8575.c driver. > > Key differences include: this one talks to other kernel code so > it can use the GPIOs "normally", but that one talks to userspace > through sysfs. Also, this one is a "new style" I2C driver, so it's > smaller and doesn't need all those error-prone module parameters. > Plus, this one handles both 8 and 16 bit chip versions. > > drivers/i2c/chips/Kconfig | 18 ++ > drivers/i2c/chips/Makefile | 1 > drivers/i2c/chips/pcf857x.c | 309 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/pcf857x.h | 43 ++++++ > 4 files changed, 371 insertions(+) > > --- a/drivers/i2c/chips/Kconfig 2007-10-28 21:04:06.000000000 -0700 > +++ b/drivers/i2c/chips/Kconfig 2007-10-29 14:16:01.000000000 -0700 > @@ -51,6 +51,24 @@ config SENSORS_EEPROM > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module > will be called eeprom. > > +config GPIO_PCF857X > + tristate "PCF875x GPIO expanders" > + depends on GPIO_LIB > + help > + Say yes here to provide access to some I2C GPIO expanders which > + may be used for additional digital outputs or inputs: > + > + - pcf8574, pcf8574a ... 8 bits, from NXP or TI > + - pcf8575, pcf8575c ... 16 bits, from NXP or TI > + > + Your board setup code will need to declare the expanders in > + use, and assign numbers to the GPIOs they expose. Those GPIOs > + can then be used from drivers and other kernel code, just like > + other GPIOs, but only accessible from task contexts. > + > + This driver provides only an in-kernel interface to those GPIOs. > + Any sysfs interface to userspace would be provided separately. How? > + > config SENSORS_PCF8574 > tristate "Philips PCF8574 and PCF8574A" > depends on EXPERIMENTAL > --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ b/include/linux/pcf857x.h 2007-10-28 21:09:49.000000000 -0700 > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ > +#ifndef __LINUX_PCF857X_H > +#define __LINUX_PCF857X_H > + > +/** > + * struct pcf857x_platform_data - data to set up pcf857x driver > + * @gpio_base: number of the chip's first GPIO > + * @n_latch: optional bit-inverse of initial output state Strange name, and I can't make much sense of the description either. > + * @context: optional parameter passed to setup() and teardown() > + * @setup: optional callback issued once the GPIOs are valid > + * @teardown: optional callback issued before the GPIOs are invvalidated Would make more sense to list setup and teardown before context? Typo: invalidated. > + * > + * In addition to the I2C_BOARD_INFO() state appropriate to each chip, > + * the i2c_board_info used with the pcf875x driver must provide the > + * chip "type" ("pcf8574", "pcf8574a", "pcf8575", "pcf8575c") and its > + * platform_data (pointer to one of these structures) with at least > + * the gpio_base value initialized. > + * > + * The @setup callback may be used with the kind of board-specific glue > + * which hands the (now-valid) GPIOs to other drivers, or which puts > + * devices in their initial states using these GPIOs. > + * > + * Since these GPIO chips don't have conventional registers recording > + * whether a pin is used for input or output, or an output latch to > + * record the values being driven, the n_latch value may be used to > + * avoid intialization glitches. Its inverted value initializes the Typo: initialization. > + * value into which bits are masked before they're written to the PCF > + * chip. That means that if it's left at zero, the chip is treated as > + * if it came from power-up reset. After reading this paragraph I still have no idea what n_latch does. But maybe that's just me. > + */ > +struct pcf857x_platform_data { > + unsigned gpio_base; > + unsigned n_latch; > + > + void *context; > + int (*setup)(struct i2c_client *client, > + int gpio, unsigned ngpio, > + void *context); > + int (*teardown)(struct i2c_client *client, > + int gpio, unsigned ngpio, > + void *context); > +}; > + > +#endif /* __LINUX_PCF857X_H */ > --- a/drivers/i2c/chips/Makefile 2007-10-28 21:04:06.000000000 -0700 > +++ b/drivers/i2c/chips/Makefile 2007-10-28 21:09:49.000000000 -0700 > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_M41T00) += m41t00.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_PCA9539) += pca9539.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_PCF8574) += pcf8574.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_PCF8591) += pcf8591.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_PCF857X) += pcf857x.o For alphabetical order, it would go one line above. > obj-$(CONFIG_ISP1301_OMAP) += isp1301_omap.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TPS65010) += tps65010.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_TLV320AIC23) += tlv320aic23.o > --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ b/drivers/i2c/chips/pcf857x.c 2007-10-29 14:12:21.000000000 -0700 > @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ > +/* > + * pcf857x - driver for pcf857{4,4a,5,5c} I2C GPIO expanders I recommend spelling out chip names completely, as it lets people grep the kernel tree for chip names when they look for support. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2007 David Brownell > + * > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > + * (at your option) any later version. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > + * GNU General Public License for more details. > + * > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > + * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. > + */ > + > +#include > +#include > +#include I suspect that there will be many more such header files in the future. Would it make sense to move them to include/linux/gpio? > + > +#include > + > + > +/* > + * The pcf857x chips only expose a one read register and one write register. Typo: extra "a". > + * Writing a "one" bit (to match the reset state) lets that pin be used as > + * an input; it's not an open-drain model, but it acts a bit like that. > + * > + * Some other I2C GPIO expander chips (like the pca9534, pca9535, pca9555, > + * pca9539, mcp23008, and mc23017) have a more complex register model with > + * more conventional input circuitry, often using 0x20..0x27 addresses. > + */ > +struct pcf857x { > + struct gpio_chip chip; > + struct i2c_client *client; > + unsigned out; /* software latch */ > +}; > + > +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ > + > +/* Talk to 8-bit I/O expander */ > + > +static int pcf857x_input8(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + > + gpio->out |= (1 << offset); > + return i2c_smbus_write_byte(gpio->client, (u8) gpio->out); Useless cast. > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_get8(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + s32 value; > + > + value = i2c_smbus_read_byte(gpio->client); > + return (value < 0) ? 0 : !!(value & (1 << offset)); !!(value & (1 << offset)) is more efficiently written (value >> offset) & 1 > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_output8(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + unsigned bit = 1 << offset; > + > + if (value) > + gpio->out |= bit; > + else > + gpio->out &= ~bit; > + return i2c_smbus_write_byte(gpio->client, (u8) gpio->out); Useless cast. > +} > + > +static void pcf857x_set8(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) > +{ > + pcf857x_output8(chip, offset, value); > +} It would be more efficient to drop pcf857x_set8 altogether and do gpio->chip.set = pcf857x_output8. Many of the comments above apply to the 16-bit functions below as well. > + > +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ > + > +/* Talk to 16-bit I/O expander */ > + > +static int i2c_write_le16(struct i2c_client *client, u16 word) > +{ > + u8 buf[2] = { word & 0xff, word >> 8, }; Stray comma. > + int status; > + > + status = i2c_master_send(client, buf, 2); > + return (status < 0) ? status : 0; > +} > + > +static int i2c_read_le16(struct i2c_client *client) > +{ > + u8 buf[2]; > + int status; > + > + status = i2c_master_recv(client, buf, 2); > + if (status < 0) > + return status; > + return (buf[1] << 8) | buf[0]; > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_input16(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + > + gpio->out |= (1 << offset); > + return i2c_write_le16(gpio->client, (u16) gpio->out); > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_get16(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + int value; > + > + value = i2c_read_le16(gpio->client); > + return (value < 0) ? 0 : !!(value & (1 << offset)); > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_output16(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) > +{ > + struct pcf857x *gpio = container_of(chip, struct pcf857x, chip); > + unsigned bit = 1 << offset; > + > + if (value) > + gpio->out |= bit; > + else > + gpio->out &= ~bit; > + return i2c_write_le16(gpio->client, (u16) gpio->out); > +} > + > +static void pcf857x_set16(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) > +{ > + pcf857x_output16(chip, offset, value); > +} > + > +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ > + > +static int pcf857x_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > +{ > + struct pcf857x_platform_data *pdata; > + struct pcf857x *gpio; > + int status = 0; Useless initialization. > + > + pdata = client->dev.platform_data; > + if (!pdata) > + return -ENODEV; > + > + /* Allocate, initialize, and register this gpio_chip. */ > + gpio = kzalloc(sizeof *gpio, GFP_KERNEL); You need to include to have access to this function. > + if (!gpio) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + gpio->chip.base = pdata->gpio_base; > + gpio->chip.can_sleep = 1; > + > + /* NOTE: the OnSemi jlc1562b is also largely compatible with > + * these parts, notably for output. It has a low-resolution > + * DAC instead of pin change IRQs; and its inputs can be the > + * result of comparators. > + */ > + > + /* '74a addresses are 0x38..0x3f; '74 uses 0x20..0x27 */ > + if (strcmp(client->name, "pcf8574a") == 0 > + || strcmp(client->name, "pcf8574") == 0) { > + gpio->chip.ngpio = 8; > + gpio->chip.direction_input = pcf857x_input8; > + gpio->chip.get = pcf857x_get8; > + gpio->chip.direction_output = pcf857x_output8; > + gpio->chip.set = pcf857x_set8; > + > + if (!i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter, > + I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE)) > + status = -EIO; You set status here... > + > + /* fail if there's no chip present */ > + status = i2c_smbus_read_byte(client); ... but overwrite it immediately. > + > + /* '75/'75c addresses are 0x20..0x27, just like the '74; > + * the '75c doesn't have a current source pulling high. > + */ > + } else if (strcmp(client->name, "pcf8575c") == 0 > + || strcmp(client->name, "pcf8575") == 0) { > + gpio->chip.ngpio = 16; > + gpio->chip.direction_input = pcf857x_input16; > + gpio->chip.get = pcf857x_get16; > + gpio->chip.direction_output = pcf857x_output16; > + gpio->chip.set = pcf857x_set16; > + > + if (!i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter, I2C_FUNC_I2C)) > + status = -EIO; > + > + /* fail if there's no chip present */ > + status = i2c_read_le16(client); Same problem here. > + > + } else > + status = -ENODEV; > + > + if (status < 0) { > + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "probe error %d for '%s'\n", > + status, client->name); > + kfree(gpio); > + return status; Might make sense to move this to a common error path, as you do it more than once. > + } > + > + gpio->chip.label = client->name; > + > + gpio->client = client; > + i2c_set_clientdata(client, gpio); > + > + /* NOTE: these chips have strange "pseudo-bidirectional" I/O pins. > + * We can't actually know whether a pin is configured (a) as output > + * and driving the signal low, or (b) as input and reporting a low > + * value ... without knowing the last value written since the chip > + * came out of reset (if any). We can't read the latched output. > + * > + * In short, the only reliable solution for setting up pin direction > + * is to do it explicitly. The setup() method can do that. > + * > + * We use pdata->n_latch to avoid trouble. In the typical case it's > + * left initialized to zero; our software copy of the "latch" then > + * matches the chip's reset state. But there may be cases where a > + * system must drive some pins low, without transient glitching. > + * Handle those cases by assigning n_latch to a nonzero value. > + */ > + gpio->out = ~pdata->n_latch; > + > + status = gpiochip_add(&gpio->chip); > + if (status < 0) { > + kfree(gpio); > + return status; > + } > + > + /* NOTE: these chips can issue "some pin-changed" IRQs, which we > + * don't yet even try to use. Among other issues, the relevant > + * genirq state isn't available to modular drivers; and most irq > + * methods can't be called from sleeping contexts. > + */ > + > + dev_info(&client->dev, "gpios %d..%d on a %s%s\n", > + gpio->chip.base, > + gpio->chip.base + gpio->chip.ngpio - 1, > + client->name, > + client->irq ? " (irq ignored)" : ""); > + > + /* Let platform code set up the GPIOs and their users. > + * Now is the first time anyone can use them. > + */ > + if (pdata->setup) { > + status = pdata->setup(client, > + gpio->chip.base, gpio->chip.ngpio, > + pdata->context); > + if (status < 0) > + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "setup --> %d\n", status); > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int pcf857x_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > +{ > + struct pcf857x_platform_data *pdata = client->dev.platform_data; > + struct pcf857x *gpio = i2c_get_clientdata(client); > + int status = 0; > + > + if (pdata->teardown) { > + status = pdata->teardown(client, > + gpio->chip.base, gpio->chip.ngpio, > + pdata->context); > + if (status < 0) { > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s --> %d\n", > + "teardown", status); Why %s instead of hard-coding "teardown"? Why is this an error message while a failing setup() at initialization time only deserves a debug message? > + return status; > + } > + } > + > + status = gpiochip_remove(&gpio->chip); > + if (status == 0) > + kfree(gpio); > + else > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s --> %d\n", "remove", status); > + return status; > +} > + > +static struct i2c_driver pcf857x_driver = { > + .driver = { > + .name = "pcf857x", > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + }, > + .probe = pcf857x_probe, > + .remove = pcf857x_remove, > +}; > + > +static int __init pcf857x_init(void) > +{ > + return i2c_add_driver(&pcf857x_driver); > +} > +/* we want GPIOs to be ready at device_initcall() time */ > +subsys_initcall(pcf857x_init); > + > +static void __exit pcf857x_exit(void) > +{ > + i2c_del_driver(&pcf857x_driver); > +} > +module_exit(pcf857x_exit); > + > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); No MODULE_AUTHOR? No entry in MAINTAINERS? -- Jean Delvare - 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/