talos-op-linux/drivers/staging/mt7621-gpio, branch master

staging: mt7621-gpio: remove driver from staging

2018-07-10T10:36:51+00:00

Remove driver from staging. It has been accepted in the linux-gpio tree. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: use devm_kasprintf to set gpio banks labels

2018-07-06T15:32:24+00:00

Instead of using a custom function to return desired name for gpio use the default assigned one and concat it '-bankN' suffix using devm_kasprintf kernel function. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Reviewed-by: NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: assign gpio chip custom changes after bgpio_init

2018-07-06T15:32:24+00:00

bgpio_init function set different data of the gpio chip, like the name. We want specific name for each bank so to get that not overwritten move all custom changes after the bgpio_init function call. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Reviewed-by: NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: use custom xlate function

2018-07-06T15:32:24+00:00

The default gpio.of_xlate function assumes there is one gpio chip for each devicetree node. Device tree had changed to only use one node, which corresponds to 3 different gpio chips now. For that approach to work we need a custom xlate function. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Reviewed-by: NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: set irq chip name only once

2018-07-06T15:32:24+00:00

There is only one irq chip so set its name only once in driver probe function. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Reviewed-by: NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: avoid use banks in device tree

2018-06-28T12:50:59+00:00

Banks shouldn't be defined in DT if number of resources per bank is not variable. We actually know that this SoC has three banks so take that into account in order to don't overspecify the device tree. Device tree will only have one node making it simple. Update device tree, binding doc and code accordly. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: update Kconfig with SoC details

2018-06-28T12:50:58+00:00

Kconfig is using a generic 'Mediatek GPIO Support' in description and help which is not specific at all about the current SoC which is MT7621. Update it. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: avoid long line in a comment

2018-06-28T12:50:58+00:00

Checkpatch script is complaining about a comment line which exceeds 80 characteres. Just silence it. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: set different names for each gpio_chip and irq_chip

2018-06-28T12:50:58+00:00

Currently the driver defines 3 gpiochips, one for each bank. /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip416/label:1e000600.gpio /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip448/label:1e000600.gpio /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip480/label:1e000600.gpio Unfortunately they all have the same label Interrupts from /proc/interrupt show the same name which is confusing: /proc/interrupts: 17: 0 0 0 0 MIPS GIC 19 mt7621, mt7621, mt7621 which is the interrupt from the GPIO controller. It is a little weird that all three banks are named "mt7621" here. We also have: 26: 0 0 0 0 GPIO 18 reset which is the interrupt from GPIO which provides the "reset" button. I suspect that if I had interrupts form two different banks they would both be called "GPIO" which would be a little confusing. In order to unify all of this set different names for each chip Use a 'bank-based' name instead the same for all: 'mt7621-bank[0-2]'. Create a new 'mediatek_gpio_bank_name' function which return the name depending on the bank number. This function is allways called with a valid index 0, 1 or 2. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: mt7621-gpio: avoid one level indentation in interrupt handler

2018-06-28T12:50:58+00:00

There is no need to check for 'pending' before loop over the interrupts using 'for_each_set_bit' if nothing is set the return values will be the same so just avoid this check avoiding also one level intentation and improving readability. Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman