Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] gpio: pmic-eic-sprd: Two-dimensional arrays maintain pmic eic

From: wenhua lin
Date: Tue Jan 02 2024 - 02:29:31 EST


On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:27, Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > A bank PMIC EIC contains 16 EICs, and the operating registers
> > are BIT0-BIT15, such as BIT0 of the register operated by EIC0.
> > Using the one-dimensional array reg[CACHE_NR_REGS] for maintenance
> > will cause the configuration of other EICs to be affected when
> > operating a certain EIC. In order to solve this problem, the register
> > operation bits of each PMIC EIC are maintained through the two-dimensional
> > array reg[SPRD_PMIC_EIC_NR][CACHE_NR_REGS] to avoid mutual interference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> > index c3e4d90f6b18..442968bb2490 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pmic-eic-sprd.c
> > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ struct sprd_pmic_eic {
> > struct gpio_chip chip;
> > struct regmap *map;
> > u32 offset;
> > - u8 reg[CACHE_NR_REGS];
> > + u8 reg[SPRD_PMIC_EIC_NR][CACHE_NR_REGS];
> > struct mutex buslock;
> > int irq;
> > };
> > @@ -151,8 +151,8 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *data)
> > struct sprd_pmic_eic *pmic_eic = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > u32 offset = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
> >
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] = 0;
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG] = 0;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE] = 0;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG] = 0;
>
> I would suggest just using this one-dimensional array which is enough
> for saving 16-bit values.
>
> To solve the issue mentioned in the commit message, we can set/clear
> the bit according to the value of 'offset', for example:
>
> pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] &= ~BIT(offset);
>
> >
> > gpiochip_disable_irq(chip, offset);
> > }
> > @@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
> >
> > gpiochip_enable_irq(chip, offset);
> >
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] = 1;
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG] = 1;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE] = 1;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG] = 1;
>
> For setting operations:
>
> pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE] |= BIT(offset);
>
> > }
> >
> > static int sprd_pmic_eic_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data,
> > @@ -174,13 +174,14 @@ static int sprd_pmic_eic_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data,
> > {
> > struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > struct sprd_pmic_eic *pmic_eic = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > + u32 offset = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
> >
> > switch (flow_type) {
> > case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV] = 1;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV] = 1;
> > break;
> > case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV] = 0;
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV] = 0;
> > break;
> > case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
> > case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
> > @@ -222,15 +223,15 @@ static void sprd_pmic_eic_bus_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)
> > sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IEV, 1);
> > } else {
> > sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IEV,
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV]);
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IEV]);
>
> When using the array we can deal with it like below since
> sprd_pmic_eic_update() would do a shift for the parameter 'val':
>
> (pmic_eic->reg[REG_IEV] & BIT(offset)) ? 1 : 0;
>

Thank you very much for your review.
I will fix this issue in patch v3.

> > }
> >
> > /* Set irq unmask */
> > sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_IE,
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_IE]);
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_IE]);
> > /* Generate trigger start pulse for debounce EIC */
> > sprd_pmic_eic_update(chip, offset, SPRD_PMIC_EIC_TRIG,
> > - pmic_eic->reg[REG_TRIG]);
> > + pmic_eic->reg[offset][REG_TRIG]);
>
> Similar here.
>
> Thanks,
> Chunyan