Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] gpio: gpio-aspeed-sgpio: Add AST2400 and AST2500 platform data.

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021, at 13:42, Steven Lee wrote:
> The 06/09/2021 08:55, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, at 19:55, Steven Lee wrote:
> > > We use platform data to store GPIO pin mask and the max number of
> > > available GPIO pins for AST2600.
> > > Refactor driver to also add the platform data for AST2400/AST2500 and
> > > remove unused MAX_NR_HW_SGPIO and ASPEED_SGPIO_PINS_MASK macros.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Lee <steven_lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed-sgpio.c | 34 +++++++++++---------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed-sgpio.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed-sgpio.c
> > > index ea20a0127748..7d0a4f6fd9d1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed-sgpio.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed-sgpio.c
> > > @@ -17,21 +17,8 @@
> > >  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > >  #include <linux/string.h>
> > >  
> > > -/*
> > > - * MAX_NR_HW_GPIO represents the number of actual hardware-supported GPIOs (ie,
> > > - * slots within the clocked serial GPIO data). Since each HW GPIO is both an
> > > - * input and an output, we provide MAX_NR_HW_GPIO * 2 lines on our gpiochip
> > > - * device.
> > > - *
> > > - * We use SGPIO_OUTPUT_OFFSET to define the split between the inputs and
> > > - * outputs; the inputs start at line 0, the outputs start at OUTPUT_OFFSET.
> > > - */
> > > -#define MAX_NR_HW_SGPIO			80
> > > -#define SGPIO_OUTPUT_OFFSET		MAX_NR_HW_SGPIO
> > > -
> > >  #define ASPEED_SGPIO_CTRL		0x54
> > >  
> > > -#define ASPEED_SGPIO_PINS_MASK		GENMASK(9, 6)
> > >  #define ASPEED_SGPIO_CLK_DIV_MASK	GENMASK(31, 16)
> > >  #define ASPEED_SGPIO_ENABLE		BIT(0)
> > >  #define ASPEED_SGPIO_PINS_SHIFT		6
> > > @@ -484,6 +471,11 @@ static int aspeed_sgpio_setup_irqs(struct 
> > > aspeed_sgpio *gpio,
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static const struct aspeed_sgpio_pdata ast2400_sgpio_pdata = {
> > > +	.max_ngpios = 80,
> > > +	.pin_mask = GENMASK(9, 6),
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  static const struct aspeed_sgpio_pdata ast2600_sgpiom_128_pdata = {
> > >  	.max_ngpios = 128,
> > >  	.pin_mask = GENMASK(10, 6),
> > > @@ -495,8 +487,8 @@ static const struct aspeed_sgpio_pdata 
> > > ast2600_sgpiom_80_pdata = {
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  static const struct of_device_id aspeed_sgpio_of_table[] = {
> > > -	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-sgpio" },
> > > -	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-sgpio" },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-sgpio", .data = &ast2400_sgpio_pdata, 
> > > },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-sgpio", .data = &ast2400_sgpio_pdata, 
> > > },
> > >  	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-sgpiom-128", .data = 
> > > &ast2600_sgpiom_128_pdata, },
> > >  	{ .compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-sgpiom-80", .data = 
> > > &ast2600_sgpiom_80_pdata, },
> > >  	{}
> > > @@ -521,13 +513,11 @@ static int __init aspeed_sgpio_probe(struct 
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > >  		return PTR_ERR(gpio->base);
> > >  
> > >  	pdata = device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > > -	if (pdata) {
> > > -		gpio->max_ngpios = pdata->max_ngpios;
> > > -		pin_mask = pdata->pin_mask;
> > > -	} else {
> > > -		gpio->max_ngpios = MAX_NR_HW_SGPIO;
> > > -		pin_mask = ASPEED_SGPIO_PINS_MASK;
> > > -	}
> > > +	if (!pdata)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	gpio->max_ngpios = pdata->max_ngpios;
> > > +	pin_mask = pdata->pin_mask;
> > 
> > Hmm, okay, maybe just re-order the patches so this commit comes before the previous one. That way we don't immediately rip out this condition that we just introduced in the previous patch.
> > 
> > I think I suggested squashing it into the previous patch, but with the removal of the comments and macros I think it's worth leaving it separate, just reordered.
> > 
> 
> I was wondering if I can squash patch-05 and patch-06 into one patch
> as this patch(patch-06) requires macros, structures, and functions that
> modified in the previous patch(patch-05).

Yeah, fair enough. Just squash them.

Cheers,

Andrew