Re: [RFC 2.6.28 1/2] gpiolib: add set/get batch v4

[Jaya Kumar]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Ryan Mallon <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jaya Kumar wrote:
>> Hi friends,
>>
>
>> +
>> +     /* BATCH GPIO OUTPUT */
>> +int gpio_set_batch(unsigned gpio, u32 values, u32 bitmask, int maskwidth);
>> +
>> +The following examples help explain how this function is to be used.
>> + Q: How to set gpio pins 0 through 7 to all 0? (8 bits)
>> + A: gpio_set_batch(gpio=0, values=0x0, bitmask=0xFF, width=8);
>> + Q: How to set gpio pins 58 through 73 to all 1? (16 bits)
>> + A: gpio_set_batch(gpio=58, values=0xFFFF, bitmask=0xFFFF, width=16);
>> + Q: How to set gpio pins 16 through 47 to 0xCAFEC001? (32 bits)
>> + A: gpio_set_batch(gpio=16, values=0xCAFEC001, bitmask=0xFFFFFFFF, width=32);
>> +
>
> Can the gpio_set_batch function be used to set non-consecutive gpios?
> For example:
>
>  gpio_set_batch(0, 0x0, 0x88, 8);
>
> To clear gpios 3 and 7? It looks like the pxa implementation will

Hi Ryan,

For the first part, yes, it can do non-consecutive gpios by using the
mask. Pins 3 and 7 are handled using a 5-bit mask. You'd  do
gpio_set_batch(3 <- starting pin is gpio 3, 0x0 <- clear, 0x1F <-
mask, 5 <- bit width of mask);

> support this, but can it be guaranteed for other architectures? If so,

That's a tough question. My basic answer would be yes because I've
provided the generic set_batch handler that just uses single bit sets
to achieve it. See __generic_gpio_set_batch() in patch). But if your
question is deeper, ie: can it be optimized for other architectures? ;
then I think I have to handwave a bit. I believe it can, as most of
the CPUs I've seen expose gpio via a set register and clear register
with variation between a context register to select which bank/module
of gpios is being accessed versus just having a pool of set and clear
registers (like pxa). If a CPU didn't have this and just had a blanket
gpio register then the implementation would have to first read the
previous register value (or cache it) in order to support doing the
mask.

> can we put an example in the documentation. If not, can we make it clear

Good point. I'll put it in the docs.

> that you shouldn't do this in the documentation. Also , in the latter
> case is it necessary to pass the bitmask, since it will just be ((1 <<
> bitwidth) - 1)?

Yes, it is as you have non-consecutive bits. In the above case the
mask width is 5 bits, but 3 bits are masked off, so we need the mask
so that the caller can tell us which bits are masked off.

Thanks,
jaya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/